SMeccT 



" S<:c: 



ClCC 









:-. dec 
:- c&c . 



cr<< cc: esc: 






J c;-c, ^:x:^ csr 

f:«z oc •'<:. <sc 

-^<L Ci<^.: -^^c:, . €C CLc C /^^ x^c: 
: .oCL. <sc. c^<^ cr<:;:' "' - •"^- ~ 
^I-OC ^ .ex ' 

I c^x. c?^ c?:c:. «i" <- <c ^';'«i ^•cia 
.' CCC CiT CC 

r C2-C' c<<c C'C *::" <: c:" c-c: <gc 



X : c c 

*Z- - <: - XTccc * 

<r/c^ era: <z 



< <: c<sc: <sc 









Z<^ ^C' CC, 

Z-CV^Z^^c 
Zjm < — " ■ ' 

<^<^ ^fZ: c: C 
~r^€c «^ C' <: 



of*aivjer;ca. M 



Jc::<i;. <?.c 



■XT -d C. c 









•ere: " 



- «k w'»'^jB^^>fcv„-*:-7iS'cisr^9 



<. C. 'ML. 






< ^ c 

< < c 









c cc^r: 



C CC«L. 

< CC oc 

c. cc oc: 

^c cc «KI 

< cc «c:' 

c CC«C 

<.cr<s: 
* ccci: 

csro: * < 

ccco: 

.■■ f cc:<r" 



-1 ^ CI' <Z 

" -^c.-.<c: 



.. «:c^. .^« 

C'C* <3 

«ii<; c c 

cc c «r ' 
(iCi^. 
ce*CC. ' 



< C C<__ «^ 



L ■•CC <?«d '-CC 



.<• c «sic '-^Cv 
^ .< cc <dcr' «<:-: 



^ CCL. 
J c C? 

«!- c ^^1:^ c'Cs. 

^-.CC <StZ c: cc 

<::>cc«c ■ ccc 



cs;c:c_.. <3c;Cl 

c€-c:C^j<,.<i. 
<^-x: ^:^^,c« 

c^.-c'^-'-: ■<!<:<:" 



cc<.. 

r^c- 

<ccc:: -C' ' 
<cc <:" c ^ 
eccCL c<.. 
ccccr. 

C3:C<:_ 

- <?c<: ■ 

:,cicc ^ 

_ ccc .<z« 

^. C<rc c «•■ 

r ccc •'< 

- CC' ■^.<Z^(y 

': cc «z&: 
1 cc c<r Cc 
^ etc <z cc«^ 



cc?. ^CC"<C~ Cf,c 

c cjs:; cf<sc,<r cc 
c^^-c/^;. «ic:c 4c: ccc 
c d%;_ dec c: ccc 
^.-'^^.. <lcc d cc 

dd}^, c:<ic<: cc 

<X<CC <:'m:<7' ccc 
,<S <^ ■'- -C<^' d-- cc^c 



LETTERS 






^>. 



or 



ALGERNON SIDNEY, 



IN 



DEFENCE OF CIVIIi lilBERTY 



A \ L> 



AGAINST THE ENCROACHMENTS 



I \ BY AN EMhNENT CITIZEN OF VIRGINIA, AND 
FITifST PUBLISHED W THE RICHMOND ENQUIRER 
IN 181P-1<». 



TO WHICH ARE ADDED. 

AN APPENDIX, 

The 1 emnrks of Mr, Ritchie as referred tc by the author of 
.'Ugernon Sidnei/^ in page 30 of this pamphlet. 



WiTTI .AN 

OTRODtCTION 

BY THE PRESE\T PI BLISHER. 



-J— JL-J 



RXCnMONS: 

PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BV T. VV. WHITL. 

1830. 



TVV. LETTERS 

OF 

ALGEHNON SYDNEY, 

DEFENCE OF CIVIIi lilBERTY 

AND 

AGAINST THE ENCROACHMENTS 

OF 

WRITTEN BY AN EMINENT CITIZEN OF VIRGINIA, AND 

FIRST PFBLISHED IN THE RICIDIOND ENQUIRER 

IN 1818-19. 



TO WHICH ARE ADDED, IN 
AN APPENDIX, 

The remarJcs of Mr. Ritchie as referred to hy the author of 
^^ Algernon Sijdney" in page 30 of this pamphlet. 



WITH AN \*rV iS*'"- x<^ 

INTRODUCTION ^^<^^-^ 
BY THE PRESENT PUBLISHER. 



RXOHIVIOKD: 

PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY T. W. WHITE. 

1830. 



PUBLISHER'S PREFACE. 



/ ^ LARGE portion of the reading public in Virginia, will 
well recollect the strong sensation excited in the winter 
of 1818-19, by the appearance of the following letters 
under the signature of "Algernon Sydney." The uncom- 
mon perspicuity and elegance which distinguish them as li- 
terary compositions, no less than the ardent love of liberty 
wiiich breathes through every line, attracted towards them 
an unusual degree of popular favour; and although confined 
to the fleeting columns of a newspaper, they were every 
where eagerly sought after, and in some instances carefully 
preserved as models of fine writing and sound patriotism. 
The Publisher believes that he cannot render a more accep- 
table service, than to present these invaluable letters to the 
public in a less perishable form, and in doing this, it is 
proper for him to say, tliat he has been so fortunate as to 
prevail upon their distinguished author to revise and correct 
some inaccuracies which were found in the original publica- / 
tion. It is also just to remark, that so far and no furtiier, / 
has that gentleman aided or participated in the present ^f- i 
tion. It issues from the press on the sole responsibility and' 
by the exclusive agency of the publisher. 

It may be asked why send forth these letters at this late 
period, when the occasion which originally produced them 
has passed away, and the individual whose conduct they so 
eloquently arraigned, has not only been tried at the bar of 
public opinion and acquitted, but has actually received the 
highest reward in the gift of the American people. To this 
it may be replied in the first place, that Truth is eternal and 
unchangeable, and though for a time it may be despised, — 
trodden down and vanquished, it is contrary to the Divine 
Justice to suppose it can ever be finally annihilated. In 
other ages and countries it has survived innumerable perils, 
— defied the combinations of fraud and tyranny, the terrors 



viii Introduction. 

administration inscribe in dismal charncters a few more pages.y 
What the final catastrophe will be, — remains to be seen. >^ 

If the publisher had been croverned by party feeling he 
would probably have desired to suppress the severe and elo- 
quent attack on Mr. Adams, then Secretary of State. Much 
however as he respects the talents and virtues of that perse- 
cuted statesman, he values still more the cause of truth and 
justice. Perhaps Mr. Adams's defence of General Jackson, 
though elaborate and ingenious, was the most unfortunate 
act of his whole political life, — and it is a circumstance of 
profound regret to his friends, that he should have employed 
his great and acknowledged genius, to throw a lustre around 
deeds of darkness and crime. That famed ^'Indication was 
perhaps the groundwork of General Jackson's present ele- 
vation, — and it would almost seem in the order of Providence 
to be wise and just, that the man who in 1818 was screened 
from deserved punishment, should in 1828 turn upon and at- 
tempt to destroy his benefactor. 

The Publisher makes no apology lor the editorial article 
selected from the Richmond Enquirer and published in the 
Appendix. It is designed to show the state of public feel- 
ing in Virginia at the time it was written. The Enquirer 
then, like a faithful sentinel on the watch-tower, warned 
his country against the insidious approaches of military 
tyranny — and the voice of that country, almost every where 
echoed the sentiment. The note of its editor has changed it 
is true ; — In his view, the man who was capable of such high 
handed deeds Is now "transformed Into an angel of light." 
For those very acts which would have sunk Mr. Adams to 
the nethermost pit — the incense of adulation and praise is 
constantly ascending to the seat of power. Whether this be 
the true Interpretation of public opinion as it now exists or 
will shortly be, is extremely doubtful. Time at least will 
demonstrate whether the spirit of freedom is entirely broken 
down, or whether our countrymen are still attached to the 
genuine principles of free government. 



From the Richmond Enquirer of Dec. 22, 1818. 



GENERAL JACKSON. 

TO THE EDITOR OF THE ENQUIRER. 

The violence that has marked the character and conduct 
of General Jackson throughout the whole course of his ser- 
vice, the acquiescence of the Executive In all, and its posi- 
tive approbation of some of the very worst of his measures, 
and, more than all, the unaccountable apathy of the public at 
large in regard to the whole subject, have filled my mind 
with amazement, indignation and alarm. 

Example and precedent are of mighty and wonderful in- 
fluence in the affairs of men. It is true in the practice of 
all governments, though it be false in the theory of ours, 
that whatever has been once done, and allowed, may be law- 
fully repeated. No services, therefore, however meritorious, 
nor station however exalted, should exempt from punishment, 
much more from inquiry, those who perpetrate or those who 
permit an open violation of the constitution. An impartial 
review of the history of General Jackson's official life, will 
exhibit a succession of offences against all the rules of mili- 
tary discipline, against the constitution of the United States 
and of such of the states as have been the scene of his ope- 
rations, and against the laws of nature and nations. On his 
part, we shall find no justification, no apology, no contri- 
tion ; and on the part of the federal Executive, no act nor ef- 
fort to maintain its own dignity, to enforce its just authority, 
or to vindicate the violated majesty of the laws. 

In the very first service in which we saw this officer em- 
ployed during the late war, he set at nought the authority of 
the war department and the rules and articles of war. Hav- 
,3 



4 Algernon Sidney, 

cord, that his bloody deeds were received by his countrymen 
with general applause, while the clemency of Col. Pearson 
was regarded with contempt and resentment. Truly, Ame- 
rican avarice of Indian lands is equal to Spanish avarice of 
Indian gold. 

I am sorry to say any thing that may seem to affect Gen- 
eral Jackson's private character: but I must remark, that 
the grant of lands he afterwards obtained from these same 
Creeks (the willing tribute of gratitude, no doubt, for his ten- 
der mercies towards their name and race) was contrary to the 
known policy of the government. It was not the Executive, 
however, but the Senate, that refused to give it sanction. 

I have here to mention a fact, which, striking as it is, 
and decisive of the character of the man, is hardly remem- 
bered, if it be not absolutely forgotten, except by a few cu- 
rious observers. General Jackson's recent seizure of St. 
Marks and Pensacola, is not the first instance in which he has, 
of his own independent sovereign authority, declared and 
waged war against a nation with which his country was at 
peace. In November 1814, he took Pensacola by storm, 
though he confessedly knew at the time, that the act was con- 
trary to the views and policy of the government.* The Ex- 
ecutive, whose commission he abused, Congress, whose pow- 
ers he usurped, looked on in profound silence. As to the 
American people, they have ever seemed to imagine it impos- 
sible, that an invasion of the rights of Spain could be ac- 
companied with an invasion of their own. 

Turn your eyes now to the principal scene of General 
Jackson's glory; happy, if it were not also the scene of un- 
restrained violence and tyranny. I would detract nothing 
from the real merit he displayed in his memorable defence of 
New-Orleans in 1814-15. I would not, if the occasion were 
proper, enter into any criticism of his military operations; 
or attempt to ascribe to fortune, any portion of the glory 
which skill and valor claim. That his success was complete, 

* Life of Jackson, p. 221, 230. 



Mgernon Sidney. 5 

that his victory was no less beneficial in its consequences 
than brilliant in its achievement; all this I gladly acknowl- 
edge. Bui to that extravagance of national gratitude, which 
has manifested itself in a lame surrender of ihe constitution, 
though but for a time, and of the civil liberty of any portion 
of the good people of this union, how distant and small so- 
ever, I never will assent, while I have breaih to make my pro- 
test heard. 

General Jackson's first step, after his arrival at New-Or- 
leans, was to propose to the legislature of Louisiana, then in 
session, a suspension of the habeas corpus; induced, it is said, 
to recommend that odious measure, by representations made 
to him by Governor Claiborne, of the disaffection of the peo- 
ple. If the Governor's apprehensions were not inspired by 
the General himself, the General knew, as well as any body, 
what reliance was to be placed on the Governor's judgment. 
The legislature knew its constituents as well as the Governor, 
and better than the General : that body certainly was not dis- 
affected : it was, doubtless, the best judge, whether the pro- 
posed measure was necessary or even expedient ; and it was 
deliberating, we are told, "with great caution" (as well it 
might) " upon its right and power to adopt such a measure," 
when General Jackson not only suspended the habeas corpus, 
but proclaimed martial law. Forthwith the city of New-Or- 
leans and its environs were converted into a camp, and put 
under a rigorous military police.* 

He rests his defence, of course, upon the tyrant's plea, 
necessity. That such a measure was necessary, I have the 
authority of the Louisiana legislature for doubting ; and Ge- 
neral Jackson has Governor Claiborne's word for believing. 
If all that Governor Claiborne told him were proved to be 
true, I should still deny the necessity. During the arduous 
struggle of the revolution, martial law was never once pro- 
claimed. Amidst the distraction of a civil war, when whole 
regiments of refugees and tories were imbodied in the ser- 

* Life of Jaclson, p. 275, 278. 



6 Mgernon Sidneij. 

vice of the enemy, and tlieir friends and kindred disperse(i 
over the country, General VVa'sbington, though for a time 
clothed with almost dictatorial powers, never proclaimed mar- 
tial law. When General Greene was flying before Lord Corn- 
wallis through the Carolinas, and his enemy was deriving 
almost as much aid from the tories as he could obtain from 
the whigs of that country, he yet never proclaimed martial 
law. Did they want prudence, circumspection, energy ? No ; 
but victory over the enemy would have had no charms for 
them, if achieved at the expense of liberty. The ready re- 
sort to violent measures in all situations of difficulty, is gen- 
erally the result of weakness of understanding and wicked- 
ness of heart combined. 

I sliall make one more remark upon the principle of this 
measure, which those who have studied our institutions only, 
will think absurdly superfluous, but which whoever has stud- 
ied our history also will allow to be seasonable. There is 
no man or body of men in this nation, competent, under any 
circumstances, to proclaim martial law within our own terri- 
tory. The President cannot; Congress cannot; both con- 
curring cannot: the most they can do, is to suspend the ha- 
heas corpus, in two specified cases, invasion and insurrection, 
and then only when necessary. The invasion or insurrection 
does not ipso facto create the necessity. 

But, if the necessity and wisdom of this measure, and 
General Jackson's competency to adopt and enforce it, be all 
granted ; let us see whether in the actual exercise of the high 
prerogative with which he had clothed himself, he preserved 
any bounds of moderation.'' whether he stopped short of ex- 
tremes, which no necessity required, which no expediency 
recommended, and to which he could have been Incited, only 
by the intoxication of absolute power, the wantonness of ca- 
price, or the madness of passion? 

While the event of the contest was yet doubtful, on the 
vague information of one of his aids (the noted Duncan) 
that a design was agitated among the members of the legis- 
lature, to propose capitulation and surrender to the invading 



Mgernon Sidney. 7 

enemy, General Jackson, though he must have known, that ^ 
in the actual state of things (martial law still prevailing,) 
such a design could not be executed without his consent, 
'• ordered Governor Claiborne closely to watch the conduct 
" of the legislature, and the moment the project of offering 
" a capitulation to the enemy, should be fully disclosed, to 
** arrest the members, and hold them subject to his future or- 
" ders. The Governor, in ids zeal to execute the command* 
*' and from a fear of the consequences involved in such con- 
" duct, construed as imperative an order which was merely 
" contingent; and placing an armed force at the door of the 
" capitol, prevented the members from convening and their 
" schemes from maturing."* The historian does not assign 
another reason for Governor Claiborne's precipitancy, which 
I have heard, and have no doubt was the true one ; that Gen- 
eral Jackson had before threatened to hang him, if he should 
hesitate to do whatever he was commanded, or presumed to 
exercise his own judgment. But if the Governor be respon- 
sible for shutting the doors of the legislature in the first in- 
stance, who is to bear the blame of keeping them shut? For, 
in fact, they were kept shut, from the 28th December 1814, 
till about the 20th of January 1815, when the enemy retired 
to his ships. f 

After the enemy, foiled and broken, had abandoned the en- 
terprise, surely, the suspension of civil law and justice, and 
the tyranny of martial law, could no longer be necessary. Was 
civil liberty yet restored to the city? No : military despotisra 
was still sternly maintained. 

On the 10th of March, Admiral Cochrane announced, 
through Mr. Livingston who had been sent to the British 
fleet to settle a cartel, that news of peace had arrived at 
Jamaica. Certainly, the necessity of military despotism was 
now at an end. Did General Jackson relax his absolute au- 

* Life of Jackson, p. 219, 321. 
t Life of Jackson, p. 374. 



« 



S Algernon Sidneij. 

thorityf It was only the occasion of enslaving the press to 
his imprimatur. 

A (ew days after this intelligence, Mr. Louaillier, a mem- 
ber of the legislature, published a paragraph in the newspa- 
pers, calculated, we are told, to excite mutiny among the 
troops, and to aflbrd tlie enemy intelligence of the situation 
and disposition of the army. The printer is incontinently 
brought before the General, and compelled (the poor printer 
afterwards told the story to his country, but it had no ears to 
hear) to disclose the author's name. Mr. Louaillier is forth- 
with arrested by a file of soldiers, without care or thought of 
the privileges of the assembly to which he belonged, dragged 
to camp, put into strait confinement,* and arraigned betbre a 
court martial as for a capital offence. t 

Mr. Louaillier was not absolutely friendless, nor had his 
friends intirely lost the sense of freedom. They applied to 
Mr. Hall, district judge of the United States, for a habeas 
corpus, which he accordingly issued. The General knew 
(he had been a judge himself) that Judge Hall was bound by 
his oath of office and at his peril, to issue this writ. Every end 
he could have reasonably desired would have been answered 
by simply disregarding the precept. But he was not content 
with that; and, as if for the purpose of showing ih^t martial 
law was something more than the suspension of the habeas 
corpus, he seized the person of the judge; exposed him and 
his function to ridicule and contempt; brought him under 
guard to camp ; detained h'mi for a time in close custody ; 
and then sent him, by force, beyond the limits of his encamp- 
ment, which included the city of New-Orleans and its environs, 
with orders to remain in exile from his family and his home, 
till peace should be regularly announced ; for it seems from 
the order itself, that the general knew that peace was in fact 
concluded, though not yet formally communicated to him. 
The district attorney, Mr. Dick, a brave and honourable 

** Life of Jackson, p. 378, 381. 
t Niles' Register, Vlll. 274. 



Algernon Sidney, 9 

man, (I know him well,) applied to Judge Lewis for a habeas 
corpus to liberate Judge Hall, which Judge Lewis granted. 
The General instantly arrested Mr. Dick, and issued an or- 
der to arrest Judge Lewis also. Both these gentlemen had 
recently borne arms, under the General, against the enemy.* 

At length, civil liberty was restored with peace, and Gen- 
eral Jackson was summoned by the Judge to answer for this 
contempt of the laws in the treatment of his person and 
authority. " If," said the magistrate, " the party object to 
" the jurisdiction of the court, he shall be heard : if his de- 
*' fence be a denial of the facts charged, or that they amount 
•' to a contempt, he shall be heard: if it be an apology to 
*' the court, or show that by the constitution and laws of the 
♦' United States, he had a right to do as charged, the court 
" will hear him " This is complained of, as not allowing 
latitude enough ! He demanded leave to abuse and vilify the 
judge! The written defence he oflered, being rejected by the 
court, was printed, and is before the public. I should smile 
at its wretched sophistry, if 1 were not alarmed at its auda- 
city, and disgusted at the impudence with which he pleads, 
as his protection from summary punishment, the very consti- 
tution and laws he had so long and so recklessly trampled 
under foot ; and denies his own plea of necessity as a proper 
foundation or the known settled practice of our courts of 
justice in cases of contempt. He was fined a thousand dol- 
lars; interrupted, insulted, and brow-beat the judge on the 
iudgment seat; and retired amid the huzzas of a people 
♦' tamed to wrongs, or this had been his last."f 

Did the legislature of Louisiana remonstrate, or demand 
redress? In the uttermost abjection of slavery, they durst 
hardly withhold from him their thanks. Did the people, in 
any part of the Union, murmur or complain? The Turks 
had not remained more quiet and contented. Did the press, 

* Life of Jackson, p. 281— JYiles' Reg. VIII. 372, 374. 
t Lfe of Jackson, 388, Z'dO—npp. F. JViles' Reg. VIII. 
211, 213. 



10 Algernon Sidney, 

the watchman of Liberty (especially of its own) the warder 
on the wall, give the alarm ? He was either talking, or pur- 
suing, or peradventure he slept and could not be awoke. Did 
the General humble himself at the feet of the constitution, 
and pray an inquiry into his conduct and motives? Did the 
Executive of the United States order any trial, any inquiry, 
or utter any censure, any disapprobation ? Did Congress pass 
an act of indemnity, which, acknowleding the purity of his 
motives and the necessity of his measures, but affirming their 
illegality, obviated in some measure tlie dangerous conse- 
quences of the exar.^ple, at the same time that it protected the 
officer from beiiig punished or questioned ? No ! History, that 
records his ninety days tyranny, records also, that his whole 
coiiduct stands unquestioned to this day, as if it were the re- 
gular exercise of undoubted authority. 

Still, many wise and good men may be inclined to find an 
excuse for us all, in the circumstances attending and follow- 
ing the transactions at New Orleans. But what will they 
say, if in time of profound peace, without the least pretext of 
necessity, and contrary to all reasons of expediency, he has 
shown the same disposition to set himself above all the con- 
stituted authorities? 

The Union was laid off into large military districts, during 
the late war; a measure of convenience and utility, perhaps, 
in time of war, but (I should think) utterly unsuitable to a 
state of peace. The same organization, however, either 
through listlessness, or for some reasons inscrutable to me, 
has ever since been continued. In April 1817, General Jack- 
son, commander of the division of the South, published an 
order prohibiting the officers of his division, from paying 
obedience to any order of the war department, unless coming 
through him as the proper organ of communication.* I shall 
not stop to examine the justness of a pretension, superlative- 
ly absurd and ridiculous on its face. I protest I discern no 
adequate motive to account for it. Was it perverseness? or 



* mies' Reg. XIL 320. 



Algernon Sidneif. i t 

pride? or military etiquette? or did the General design this 
order, to preserve by way of continual claim, his indepen- 
dence of, or rather his ascendant over, his lawful superiors ? 
If such were the design, it has, for aught we know, complete- 
ly succeeded. I have heard, tiiat this contest for supremacy 
has been adjusted to the satisfaction of the Executive. I know 
that no atonement has been made for the insult and injury to 
the nation. The dignity of the government is a part of its 
authority, with which it is clothed, as with all the rest, not 
for the personal advantage or honor of ministers, but for the 
public good. 

I ask your attention now, to the events of the present year. 
General Jackson being again ordered to assume the command 
of our southern army in person, and to chastise and curb the 
Seminoles, the State of Georgia was doomed to behold his 
presence in the field. The constitution of the United States 
expressly reserves to the State governments, the appointment 
of the officers of their respective militia; and the constitution 
of Georgia, (like the constitutions or laws of every other 
State in the Union) appoints the Governor, ex-officio, com- 
mander in chief of its forces, regular and militia. It is an 
authority, indeed, essential to the existence of the State sove- 
reignties, and to the integrity of our system. To the aston- 
ishment of the nation, General Jackson declares that his com- 
mand virtually suspends the constitution of Georgia, in re- 
spect to the military authority of its Executive at least; and 
in what other respects, we shall know wlien occasions shall 
occur, as in Louisiana, to develope the full extent of his pre- 
tensions. Governor Rabun had issued an order to a militia 
officer, never doubting, I dare say, his own constitutional and 
lawful power. The order was most vilely abused. General 
Jackson, not content with assuming the power of redressing 
the abuse (for that was an usurpation,) questions and denies 
the authority of the order itself. In his letter of May 7, 1818, 
he tells Governor Rabun, in plain terms — "You, sir, as Go- 
" vernor of a State within my military division, have no right 
" to give a military order while I am in the field." Behold 



12 Mgernon Sidney. 

the monstrous consequences of this broad and bold prelen- 
sion, if it should obtain ! Should an insurrection occur in 
any of the States belonging to the division of the South, while 
General Jackson is in the field, the Governor of the State, 
and of course every inferior officer of the militia, must pati- 
ently endure the horrors of a servile war, till his high behests 
can be known ! 1 cannot repress the sentiment of astonish- 
ment I feel, that the legislature or the representatives of Geor- 
gia in Congress, have not demanded his immediate arrest and 
trial. 

But in truth, we have the best reason for believing that in 
General Jackson's opinion, whenever he is at the head of an 
army, all the powers of every branch of our governments, 
State and Federal, are suspended or transferred to him —His 
instructions for the conduct of the war against the Seminoles 
may be gathered from the President's late message to Congress: 
he was authorised to pursue the savage enemy into the Span- 
ish territory, if he should take refuge there, taking care not 
to encroach on the rights of Spain. According to the laws 
of nations, it is absolutely unlawful to attack an enemy in a 
neutral country, or commit in it any other hostility; but if a 
neutral afford a retreat to one belligerent, and allow him time 
to recover, and watch a favorable opportunity of renewing his 
attack on the territories of the other, that other may march 
into the neutral territory in quest of his enemy. The orders 
which were given to General Jackson (as I understand them) 
authorised him to carry war into Florida against the Se- 
minoles, but not to commit hostility against the subjects of 
Spain ; and his correspondence shows, that he himself under- 
stood them in the same light. I acquit the Executive, there- 
fore, of intending a violation of the constitution, in waging 
war without a previous declaration of it by Congress. The 
merits of General Jackson's conduct may be stated in a few 
words. Disregarding his orders, usurping the powers of Con- 
gress, which alone by our constitution is capable of declaring 
war, he took St. Marks by assault, and Pensacola by capitu- 
lation; the first on the 7th of April, and the latter on the 27th 



Algernon Sidney. 13 

of May. Whether in the interval of fifty days which elapsed 
between the seizure of the two posts, the Executive had time 
to get intelligence of his proceedings, and send new orders 
to the General? whether it did send him such orders? and 
whether he was instructed to persist in or to forbear further 
aggressions against Spain? are questions, which well deserve 
a solution, but which are not to be discussed in the actual 
state of the information before the public. This only we know, 
that the President, while to preserve peaceful relations with 
Spain, he disavows General Jackson's proceedings, at the 
same time excuses and applauds that officer himself for these 
very acts. Whether the circumstances, which came to Gene- 
ral Jackson's knowledge, during the campaign, would have 
afforded just cause of a declaration of war against Spain, is 
not the question : whatever those circumstances were, it was 
an usurpation in General Jackson to wage war upon his own 
judgment. What does General Jackson, about the time of 
these very proceedings, say on this very subject, to Governor 
Rabun ? He indignantly denies his right to make war against 
an Indian tribe in peace with and under the protection of the 
United States. Out of his own mouth I condemn him. 

The laws of nations afford no more protection to indivi- 
duals against the violence of this officer, than to sovereign 
States. I allude to the trial and execution of Arbuthnot and 
Ambrister. To give a general character of these strange pro- 
ceedings, they were indictments, convictions and capital execu- 
tions, of foreigners, for high treason against the United States, 
to which they owed no allegiance, committed and prosecuted in 
a foreign territory and jurisdiction ! 

The first objection, to which those proceedings are liable, 
is, that admitting these men were guilty of all the offences al- 
leged against them ; admitting, that, according to the laws of 
nations, they by sucli guilt incurred the forfeiture of their 
lives; they were not amenable to the tribunal before which 
they were arraigned. Our courts martial have no lawful ju- 
risdiction, beyond that, which is given them by the acts oi 
Congress establishing the rules and articles of war; and it will 



14 Algernon Sidney, 

hardly be pretended, that these have vested in them any cog- 
nizance over crimes of the nature of those imputed to these 
unhappy men. 

If the jurisdiction be admitted, the sentence against both 
of them was unjust in law; and the sentence against Arbuth- 
not was unjust in point of fact. 

Arbuthnot was found guilty by the court martial, on two 
charges: 1st, of inciting the Creek Indians to war against 
the United States, he himself being a British subject and his 
nation at peace with ours; 2d, of aiding, abetting and com- 
forting the enemy, supplying them with the means of war. 
It will hardly be believed, that the only proof adduced, ap- 
plicable to the first of these two charges, was, the evidence of 
John Winslet, detailing the contents of a letter the witness 
had interpreted for an Indian chief called Little Prince, which 
the witness said was signed by a Mr. Arbuthnot, without sta- 
ting that it was signed by the Arbuthnot who stood accused, 
though it appears he was acquainted with his hand writing ; 
and the evidence of William Hambly (Arbuthnot's known, 
and mortal enemy) that the witness had been told by the In- 
dians, that Arbuthnot had instigated them to war against the 
United States, and to the murder and plunder of our citizens. 
When the public is informed, that the rules of evidence are 
the same in courts martial, as those that prevail in courts of 
law, it will be at no loss to make a fair estimate of the merits 
of this conviction. As to the second charge (discarding the 
hcarsry evidence of the same William Hambly) the principal 
proof of the charge was drawn from the prisoner's own cor- 
respondence, and some other documents. I say, confidently, 
that those papers contain not the least proof, that he ever in- 
cited the Indians to ofl'ensive war, or aggression of any kind, 
against the United States or their citizens; they relate to mea- 
sures of defence and prevention against aggressions upon the 
Indians. Far from instigating them to war, he manifestly 
considered their utier ruin as the certain consequence of a 
war with the United States. He labors, therefore, to impress 
upon their minds, upon the British minister at Washington, 



Jllgernon Sidney, 15 

and on other correspondents, that the encroachments of our 
citizens were not countenanced by the President. In his 
whole correspondence there is not to be found one word 
stronger than the following letter to our Indian Agent, Gene- 
ral Mitchell, of January 19, 1818: — "In taking the liberty 
" of addressing you, sir, in behalf of the unfortunate Indians, 
'■' believe me I have no wish but to see an end put to a war, 
" which if persisted in, I foresee must eventually be their ruin ; 
" and, as they are not the aggressors, if in the height of their 
** rage they have committed any excesses, that you will over- 
" look them, as the just ebullitions of an indignant spirit 
" against an invading foe." It is true, he was the organ or 
the instrument of the Indian appeals to the officers of his own 
and the Spanish governments, of their applications for pro- 
tection in what they deemed their just rights, and of their re- 
monstrances to our own Indian Agents, against past or anti- 
cipated injury and oppression. It is possible too, that he sup^ 
plied them with some scanty munitions of war; though a mer- 
ciful court would have inferred, that nine kegs of powder and 
500 pounds of lead, were imported by an Indian trader, as a 
supply for hunting, not for war. That he took a deep inter- 
est in the aflairs of this deveted race; that he deplored their 
miserable condition ; that he regarded them as his fellow crea- 
tures; and was desirous and active to save them from utter 
extirpation ; of these unchristian crimes (as General Jackson 
considers them,*) he was certainly guilty. The General re- 
gards him as a secret agent of the British government, and 
thinks that government was well advised of his proceedings.* 
I think it very probable... .But that would prove not his guilt, 
but his innocence. It would prove that it was not the indivi- 
dual, but the British goverinnent that had wronged us, if any 
wrong bad been done. Its subject could be guilty of no fault 
in following its orders... .Every subject or citizen owes obedi- 
ence to his government; except, indeed, the officers of Gene- 
ral Jackson's own division of the South. 

■ *■ ... " .. m . u rn ' ■ 

* See official despatch of May 5, 1818. 



16 Mgernon Sidney, 

Ambrister was convicted, 1st, of aiding, abetting and com- 
forting the enemy, supplying them with the means of war; 
and 2dly, of leading and commanding the Creek Indians in 
war against the United States; he being a British subject, 
and his country at peace with ours. It is needless to discuss 
the evidence adduced in support of the first charge, as the 
accused confessed the secotid, which is far the stronger of the 
two. It is unaccountable to me, how the court martial, con- 
victing this man on these ciiarges, should in his case, have 
commuted the punishment of death for that of stripes and im- 
prisonment, and should not have recalled the sentence of death 
it pronounced against Arbuthnot. Is it not clear, that, upon 
their own principles, Ambrister was the more heinous crimi- 
nal? 

But if the guilt of these men, with every imaginable ag- 
gravation, be admitted, the question would still remain, whe- 
ther, according to the laws of nations and the usages of war, 
they were liable to the punishment of death? It is impossible 
for the meanest capacity, to misunderstand the writers on pub- 
lic law, so far as to see in them any authority for the mon- 
strous principles affirmed in the fatal general order. Discard- 
ing the illustrious instances of La Fayette, Kosciusko and 
De Kalb, the question may be brought immediately home to 
our bosoms, in its application to the humblest and obscurest 
of mankind. American and British merchants are, at this 
very time, supplying the royal and revolutionary armies in 
Spanish America (whichever affords the best market) with all 
kinds of munitions of war: If the masters and crews of their 
vessels should be taken in the very act of carrying on this 
trade, are they liable to be arraigned before a naval or mili- 
tary court martial, sentenced, and hanged up at the yard arm, 
or on the next tree? Many of our youth have accepted com- 
missions in the Patriot array, and are fighting the battles of 
South American independence; should they fall into the 
hands of the royalists, has Spain a General, or could a court 
martial be detailed from her armies, who would hang them in 
cold blood ? When I hear it urged, that Arbuthnot and Am- 



Mgernon Sidney. 17 

brister did not unite in war with civilized nations, but with 
the wild savages of the forest, who do not respect the laws of 
civilized warfare; I look into the history of my own country, 
and find there (thank God) that such a distinction is not to 
be endured at this day. We never before heard of it. Had 
it prevailed, I know not how many Englishmen Gen. Wayne 
might have hanged, in the war he conducted against the In- 
dians; but Ae could not silence the pleadings of conscience 
and humanity in his own bosom, or encounter the frown of 
Washington. Had it prevailed, why were not the British 
prisoners, taken on our northern frontier during the late war, 
fighting by the side of savages, whom they and their govern- 
ment had incited to hostility against us, at a time too when 
(to the disgrace of the British name) rewards were offered for 
American scalps; why were they not, all, instantly tried, con- 
victed and led to execution .'' 

Where (as it has been justly asked) was the necessity of 
executing these two men, even if their sentence was undoubt- 
edly right.'' The Seminole war was at an end: and had it 
still been raging, General Jackson could have sent these pri- 
soners in chains to the United States, to be dealt with accord- 
ing to the wisdom of his govtiumeni. Tlie blood even of 
the guilty should not be shed without reluctance and without 
any good end. 

As to Ambrister, the court martial did not condemn him to 
die. The first sentence, as General Jackson is pleased to con- 
sider it, being instantly rescinded by the court, was in truth 
no sentence at all His approbation could not revive its ex- 
istence. The last sentence was the only sentence. When the 
commander in chief disapproved it, the most he could right- 
fully have done, was to order the court martial to reconsider 
it. By what authority, then, was Ambrister doomed to death ? 
By the sovereign will of Major General Andrew Jackson, in 
^'hose hands are the powers of peace and war, life and death. 

Mr. Gales, in his officious and awkward zeal to excuse this 
part of the General's conduct, suggests, "that it was no doubt 
" dictated by a regard to the wishes of the prisoner, who pre- 
.5 



18 Mgernon Sidney. 

" ferred death to the ignominious punishment, tor which that 
"fate was commuted by the court.". ...This is not a mere 
surmise of Mr. Gales. If the fact be so, it aggravates the 
General's guilt. A brave man asking death at his hands, as 
a refuge from disgrace, should have moved him to respect, 
sympathy and pardon. What shall we think of this man, the 
utmost stretch of whose clemency, according to his defenders f 
is to inflict death for mercy's sake ? 

Thus, has an American officer destroyed the lives of two of 
his fellow creatures, without any rightful power, without any 
adequate motive, and vvitli such indecent precipitancy as hard- 
ly to give time for prayer, in the interval between judgment 
and death. Humanity bleeds at the recital ; and national 
pride sinks in the American heart, oppressed with the load of 
shame and grief. 

And all that the President of the United States has said, and 
all he has done, is, to tell Congress, that a copy of the proceed- 
ings of the court martial, in the trial of Arbuthnot and Ambris- 
ier, shall be laid before them; and to fulfil the promise! 

Here, for the present, let us shut the scene. General Jack- 
son, from the moment he was intrusted with command, has, 
avowedly auJ ^J^&leillatil;all_y, madp his own will and plea- 
sure, the sole rule and guide of all his actions: he has sus- 
pended the Executive, legislative and judicial functions of the 
States, with arbitrary sway, and assumed to do so as of right: 
he has insulted the Executive of the United Slates, at whose 
pleasure he holds his commission, spurned its authority, dis- 
regarded and transcended its orders : he has usurped the high 
prerogative of peace and war, intrusted by all nations to the 
sovereign authority of the State, and by our constitution to 
Congress alone : he has abrogated the known laws of nations, 
and promulgated a new code of his own, conceived in mad- 
ness or folly, and written in blood : he has, in fine, violated all 
laws human and divine, and violated them with impunity. 

Unconnected with public men, bearing no part in public 
affairs, a sdent spectator of ordinary political occurrences, I 
can yet never be indifiereut to great questions of right, that 



Mgernon Sidney. 19 

directly affect the peace, the honor and the constitution of 
my country. I see no reason, on the present occasion, to for- 
bear the public communication of my opinions; or to soften, 
if I could, the indignant language of truth and justice. Li- 
berty is not of spontaneous growth in any soil or clime; and 
he is deaf to the voice of experience, who deems it that hardy 
plant, which will flourish even after it has taken root, without 
continual pains and cultivation. 

ALGERNON SIDNEY. 



From the Richmond Enquirer of January 5, 1819. 
TO THE HONORABLE JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, 

SECRETARY OF STATE. 

Sir, — I have read your letter to our minister at Madrid, of 
the 28th November 1818, with the profound interest and at- 
tention which the subject inspires and demands, and with all 
the respect due to your own character, and to the supreme 
Executive authority of the nation, of which you are the organ. 
You will not, I presume, be surprised or oflended, if I regard 
that paper as only in form addressed to Mr. Erving, but real- 
ly to the American public, and designed more to remove 
doubts and discontents at home, than to answer the com- 
plaints of the Spanish government. In every view, you are 
entitled to a full and fair hearing. If I have not been gross- 
ly misinformed, you, and you only, advised the course, which 
the President has thought proper to pursue, in relation to 
General Jackson's proceedings in Florida; and considering 
the heavy and awful responsibility you have incurred, I won- 
der neither at the earnestness of your zeal nor at the copious- 
ness of your eloquence. You have great advantages; high 
station, a character justly respected, acknowledged abilities, 
and every means of full and precise information : Add to 
which, we recognise the professor of rhetoric in the Secreta- 



30 Algernon Sidney. 

ry of State. But you will hardly reconcile the understand- 
ings and the hearts of your countrymen, to your new maxims 
of public law, as dangerous as they are cruel and abhorrent 
from the national character for moderation, clemency and 

justice ; nor will you ever persuade us, to find, in your recri- 
minations against Spain, however just and well founded, a 
satisfactory apology for infractions of our own constitution 

' and violations of our dearest rights. 

The complaints of the Spanish minister, may be stated in 
his own words ; since without pretending to deny the acts com- 
plained of, you avow them all, and boldly maintain that they 
are perfectly justifiable. " His Majesty's territory" (says 
Don Pizarro in his note to Mr. Erving of the 29th August 
1818) "has been shamefully invaded; his posts and places 
" violently seized on ; their garrison made prisoners, and con- 
" veyed out of the province in which ihey were employed in 
" his majesty's service; and, on the Spanish soil, sanguinary 
" executions have taken place, of the subjects of powers in 
"amity with the King; an act of barbarity glossed over with 
" the forms of justice, and thereby rendered, considering the 
" place and other circumstances, a refinement of cruelty." 
The Spaniard, probably, regarded those sanguinary execu- 
tions as of trivial importance, compared with the unceremoni- 
ous invasion of Florida, the hostile occupation of St. Marks 
and Pensacola, and the capture of the Spanish Governor and 
garrisons ; while you (for reasons obvious enough, consider- 
ing the real purposes of your letter,) regard those executions 
as the principal ground of complaint against General Jack- 
son's proceedings. For my part, I am content that you shall 
regulate the course of the discussion, according to your own 
opinion of the importance of the topics. 

In the representation you make of the cases of Arbuthnot 
and Ambrister, I observe you refer to some evidence, which 
I, who have access to no source of information whatever but 
the newspapers, have never seen. Judging from the docu- 
ments and testimony that were before the court martial, it was 
ray deliberate opinion, as I have already told the public, that 



Algernon Sidney. 21 

Arbuthnot was not guilty of the oflences laid to his charge; 
and though I shall not lightly renounce that opinion, and cer- 
tainly not, out of mere deference to your judgment; yet I will 
not presume to dispute the justness of inferences, which you 
have drawn from additional evidence that I have never had an 
opportunity of examining. For the present, then, I will take 
for granted, that you have come to a correct result as to facts: 
that it is true, " that Arbuthnot and Ambrister were not only 
♦' identified with the savages (with whom they were carryinc;- 
" on war against the United States) but that Arbuthnot was 
" the mover and fomenter of the war, which, without his in- 
*' terference and false promises of support from the British 
" government, would never have happened; and that Ambris- 
*' ter was the instrument of war against Spain as well as the 
" United States, commissioned by M'Gregor, and expedited 
" by Woodbine, upon their project of conquering Florida 
" with the Indians and Negroes." And now, sir, the ques- 
tion shall be fairly stated in the words of your own conclu- 
sion: Whether, " as the accomplices of savages, and (sinning 
** against their better knowledge) worse than savages, Gene- 
" ral Jackson, possessed of their persons and of the proofs 
" of their guilt, might, by the lawful and ordinary usages 
*' of war, have hung them both, without the formality of a 
"trial?" 

I mean to meet you fairly upon your own ground, and to 
resolve this question by an appeal to authority, and (what is 
more) to the very authority to which you refer. 

General Jackson asserts, in general terms, as his own 
ground of justification of his conduct, that "it is an estab- 
*' lished principle of the law of nations, that any individual 
•' of a nation, making war against the citizens of any other 
" nation, they being at peace, forfeits his allegiance, and be- 
" comes an outlaw and a pirate." I believe, that not one 
man in this nation, has had the hardihood to attempt a de- 
fence of the General upon his own principles. Why have 
you passed by this ground of defence, in utter silence? It is 
too remarkable to have escaped your attention. Of your 



22 Mgemon Sidney. 

opinion I can have no doubt- You know, that a person, who 
joins an enemy and fights in his cause, is to be considered aad 
treated as an enemy. This is tiie whole of the law of nations 
on the subject. 1 ou owed it, sir, to yourself, to your govern- 
ment, your country, and your God, to express, publicly, your 
decided disapprobation of this novel, preposterous and dan- 
gerous doctrine. 

Abandoning General Jackson's law of nations, and, doubt- 
less, approving in your heart, the general voice on that sub- 
ject; you have placed his justification on intirely different 
grounds, which he probably never even thought of. Yet, in 
a case like this, the justification, to be satisfactory, ought to be 
palpable. You say, that " contending with such enemies" as 
the Seminoles, " although humanity revolts at intire retalia- 
" tion upon them, and spares the lives of their feeble and de- 
" fenceless women and children, yet mercy herself surrenders 
"to retributive justice, the lives of their leading warriors ta- 
" ken in arms, and still more the lives of foreign white incen- 
" diaries, who, disowned by their own governments, and dis- 
" owning their own natures, degrade themselves beneath the 
" savage character, by voluntarily descending to its level." 
And to prove, that " this is the usage of legitimate warfare," 
you quote two passages from Vattd, which seem to support 
the proposition, only because you have omitted to quote the 
context necessary to explain the author's meaning. Nor can 
I account for the manner of these quotations, more charitably 
or respectfully towards you, than by supposing, that you felt 
the oppression of this part of your subject, and were in too 
much haste and anxiety to dispose of it, to examine it with 
patience. I have little else to perform but the dull work of 
quoting the whole of these passages. 

One of your quotations from Vattel is in these words : 
" As a General has the right of sacrificing the lives of his 
" enemies to his own safety or that of his people, if he has 
" to contend with an inhuman enemy, often guilty of such 
" excesses, he may take the lives of some of his prisoners^ 
" and treat them as his own people have been treated." Now, 



Algernon Sidney. 23 

let the whole passage be laid before the public. Speaking of 
a kind of retaliation sometimes practised in war, under the 
name of reprisals, Vattel says, " if a General of the enemy 
" has, without any just reason, caused some prisoners to be 
" hanged, a liiie number of his men, and of the same rank, 
** will be hung up, signifying to him, that this retaliation will 
" be continued for obliging him to observe the laws of war. — 
"♦It is a sad extremity thus to put a prisoner to death for his 
" General's fault, and if this prisoner before was promised his 
*' life, reprisals cannot be made on him with any colour of 
"justice. Yet, as a Prince has a right of sacrificing the lives 
" of his enemies to his safety, and that of his own men, if he is 
"engaged with an inhuman enemy, who frequently commits 
" such enormities, he appears to have a right of refusing life 
" to some of the prisoners he may take, and of treating them 
" as his were treated. But Scipio's humanity is rather to be 
"imitated."* And then-follow some historical illustrations, 
according to the manner of this author. I shall resort to our 
own history for an illustration. But let it be first observed, 
that notice of the retaliation must be given to the enemy; con- 
sequently, the retaliation is only justifiable flagrante bello. 
It was upon this principle that General Washington acted 
when he caused Sir Charles Asgill lo he designated by lot, 
as the victim of a just and necessary retaliation for the ex- 
cesses committed by his enemy. Whether that case be at all 
similar in principle to the present; whether General Washing- 
ton's conduct in regard to Sir Charles Asgill, be in the least 
like General Jackson's proceedings against Arbuthnot and 
Ambrister; in fine, whether the passage you have quoted from 
Vattel be in any manner apposite to your purpose ; let the 
good sense of the public decide. General Jackson had al- 
ready sacrificed two victims to this policy of retaliation : on 

* VatteVs Law of JVations, Book III. chap. VIII. § 141. 
I observe that Mr. Adams either translates for himself from the 
original, or uses a different translation from that I have had 
access to. It is unimportant ; but I mention it to avoid the im- 
putation of unfairness or presumption. 



24 Algernon Sidney, 

the 9th April, 1818, he wrote to the Secretary of War, that 
"Francis or Hills Hago and Heinattlemico" (Hillis Hadjo and 
Hamathli Micco, as you write their names) "had been hung; 
the latter commanded the party who so inhumanly sacrificed 
Scott and his companions." He assigns no particular reason 
for hanging Hills Hago. In truth, almost every one of the 
few Seminole warriors he could find, whether they made or 
were in a condition to make resistance or not, were put to 
death. This looks more like extirmination than retaliation. 
At any rate, it was retaliation enough. 

Your other quotation from Vattel is certainly applicable, 
though as certainly insufiicient. You give it to us in these 
words : " When at war with a ferocious nation, which ob- 
" serves no rules and grants no quarter, they may be chas- 
" tised in the persons of those of them who may be taken; 
"they are of the number of the guilty; and by this rigour 
" the attempt may be made of bringing them to a sense of 
"laws of humanity." And then the author adds, what you 
omit : " But wherever severity is not absolutely necessary, cle- 
" mency is to be used.''''^* What is to be considered unnecessa- 
ry severity, he had before explained, in discussing the rights 
of nations waging just war, and what is allowed to them 
against their enemies. " AH these are to be deduced from 
** one single principle, the end of u just war: for when the 
"end is lawful, lie who has a right to prosecute this end, is 
"warranted in the use of all necessary means to attain it. 
" The end of a just war is to avenge or prevent injury; that 
" is, to procure by force the justice that cannot otherwise be 
"obtained: to compel an unjust person to repair an injury 
" already done, or to give security against any wrong threat- 
" ened by him. On a declaration of war, therefore, this na- 
" tion has a right of doing against (he enemy, whatever is 
" necessary to this justifiable end of bringing him to reason, 
" and obtaining justice and security from him. The lawful 
" end gives a true right only to those means, which are ne- 



* VaiteVs Laio of Nations, Book III. chap. VHI. %\A\. 



Mgernon Sidney. 25 

*"' cessary for obtaining such end. Whatever exceeds this, is 
*' censured by the law of nature, is faulty, and >vill be con- 
^' denined at the tribunal of conscience. Hence it is, that the 
" right to such or such acts of hostility varies according 
" to their circumstances. What is just and perfectly inno- 
" cent in a war, in one particular situation, is not always so 
" in another. Right goes hand in hand with necessity, and 
" the exigency of the case, but never exceeds it. It being, 
" however, very difficult always to form a precise judgment 
" of what the present case requires; and every nation being 
** a judge of what its own particular situation will allow; na- 
" tions must in this particular conform to general rules. Ac- 
" cordingly, whenever it is certain and evident that such a 
" measure, such an act of hostility, is necessary in general 
" for overpowering the enemy's resistance, and attaining the 
"end of a lawful war: this measure, taken in general, is ac- 
" counted by the law of nations a just right in war: though 
'' he who makes use of it unnecessarily, when he might attain 
"his end by milder methods, is not innocent before God and 
*' his conscience. Of this the difference between what is just, 
" equitable, irreprehensible in war, and what is only allowed 
*' and not punished among nations, is founded- The sove- 
" reign who would preserve a pure conscience, and punctual- 
" ly discharge his duties to humanity, is never to lose sight 
" of what we have already observed more than once, that na- 
" lure gives him a right of making war, only in cases of ne- 
" cessity, vt'hen a remedy, ever disagreeable, though often 
"necessary, must be used against obstinate injustice or vio- 
•'lence. If he is penetrated with this great truth, he will 
''never carry the remedy beyond its due limits; and will be 
" careful, that it shall not fall with greater weight on man- 
*' kind, and cause more calamity and desolation, than is re- 
" quisite for the defence of his rights and tiie care of his safe- 
•' ly."* Let General Jackson's conduct, in the cases of Ar- 

* VatteVs Law of Nations, Book III. chop. VIIL ^ 136. 
6 



26 Algernon Sidney, 

buthnot and Anibrister, be tested by tbcse principles. Ha? 
lie punctually discharged the duties of humanity? Is he in- 
nocent before God and his conscience? Was the execution of 
these men necessary? Could the ends of the war have been 
obtained by no milder methods? The ends of the war! They 
were already accomplished ; the war itself was at an end ; at 
least, that was his own opinion at the time. 1 ask your mi- 
nute attention to dates. In a letter to the Secretary of War, 
of the 20th April, he says: " I believe I may say that the de- 
*' struction of this place" (Bowleg's town on the Suwaney) 
" with the possession of St. Marks, having on the night of 
*' the 18th captured the late lieutenant Ambrister, and, as re- 
" presented by Arbuthnot, successor of Woodbine, will end 
" the Indian war for the present; and should it he renewed, 
** the position taken, which ought to be held, will enable a 
" small party to put it dotvn promptly.'''' Indeed, so confident 
was he that the Indian war was at an end, that (as we learn 
from the same despatch) *' he had ordered the Georgia troops 
" to Hartford, to be m,ustered, paid and discharged" On the 
26th, he writes still more explicitly: "My presence in this 
" country can no longer be necessary. The Indian forces 
" have been divided and scattered, and cut off from all com- 
" munication with those unprincipled agents of foreign na- 
" tions, who have deluded them to their ruin; they have not 
" the pow{er, if the will remain, of again annoying our fron- 
" tier." Now, it was on that very day, (26th April,) that the 
court martial was detailed for the trial of Arbuthnot and Am- 
brister; on the same day, it convened and proceeded to the 
trial of Arbuthnot; on the 27th, he was sentenced to die; on 
the 28lh, Ambrister was put on his trial, and after 6 o'clock 
of that day, condemned, hut not to death; on the 29th, the 
general order for the execution of them both was issued, and 
on the 30th, they were executed. Was the execution neces- 
sary? Just as necessary as it would be to execute Woodbine 
or Nicholls, if we could lay hands on them, at this time, or 
twenty years hence. Let us again recur to the example of 
General Washington, in whose hands power was a blessing 



Algertion Sidney. 27 

to mankind. It was not in compliment to the interposition of 
the Queen of France, though to flatter our royal ally he was 
willing to have it thought so, that ho spared Sir Charles As- 
gill's life J he spared him, because the necessity of retaliation 
had passed away — otherwise, he who had stifled all the gen- 
erous sympathies of his heart, and sternly doomed Andre to 
the gallows, had without hesitation delivered over Asgill to 
the executioner. The manner in which General Lee accounts 
for the forbearance of General Washington to make retalia- 
tion; when he had it in his power, for the treatment of Colo- 
nel Hayne, who was most unjustly and barbarously hanged 
at Cliarleston, by orders of Lord Rawdon and Colonel Bal- 
four, is a forcible and exact illustration of my argument. 
" The change" (says General Lee) " in the demeanor of the 
" British commanders, and the evident fast approach of peace, 
" rendered the severe expedient unnecessary. He, therefore, 
" indulged his love of lenity, and conformed his conduct to the 
" mild temper of the United States, forgiving an atrocity, 
" which at any other period of the war, would not have been 
" overlooked."* So thought and felt the heroes of the revo- 
lution ! Such was the temper of the United States, in the days 
of their youth and innocency! The laws of nations, especial- 
ly of war, depending chiefly on usage, are to be studied in 
the pages of history. — Tlie conduct of our revolutionary he- 
roes, and particularly of their illustrious leader, might fur- 
nish us a just rule of action, in almost every case that can 
arise. But unhappily, the benefit of good, bears no propor- 
tion to the mischief of bad, examples. 

Leaving you now, sir, to search for other and more appo- 
site authorities, if indeed you think proper to labour in vain; 
I proceed to examine the remaining topics of your letter. 
You tell us, and tell us trul}', " that from the period of our 
" established independence to this day, all the Indian wars 
'' with which we have been afllicted, have been distinctly 

* Lee's Memoirs of the Southern Campaign, vol. IT. chap. 
XXX FTL prope fine. 



28 Mgernun Sid^ieg, 

•^traceable to the instigation of English traders or agents, al- 
*' ways disavowed, yet always felt, more than once detected, 
" but never before punished." In the usages of our Indian 
wars, then, you confess there is no support for your argument. 
In February 1779, Colonel Clarke made the British Colonel 
Hamilton a prisoner at St, Vincents; and as he had been in- 
strumental in ihe savage barbarities he had encouraged, he 
Avas, by order of the Executive of Virginia, put in irons, and 
confined in a jail. It is known that General Washington 
disapproved even this measure of severity, and the Governor 
of Virginia soon relented, and restored him to the condition 
of an ordinary prisoner of war. Allow me to suggest to 
you, as one reason for this our undeviating clemency : we 
have always known in our consciences, that we have constant- 
ly employed friendly tribes in war against those that were hos- 
tile, and fought ourselves by the side of savages, who spared no 
age, sex or condition; who gave no quarter in battle; scalped 
and tomahawked the vanquished, the wounded and the dying; 
and made prisoners only to add the pains of torture to the 
horrors of death. Shall rigors, never heard of while hordes 
of savages incircled our sparse and feeble frontier settlements, 
be introduced now for the first time, when, partly by wars 
among themselves and wars with the whites, and partly by 
the progress of our population, this devoted race is visibly 
and rapidly approaching to utter extinction? 

You have taken great pains, sir, to prove that Ambrister 
was guilty of traitorous designs and practices against Spain 
herself: and this is gravely urged, as a reason to satisfy Spain, 
that General Jackson's execution of him, in her own territory, 
and within her own jurisdiction, was no violation of her sove- 
reignty ! and to satisfy us, that it was according to the legiti- 
mate usages of warl 

You represent, that, under the circumstances, General Jack- 
son " might, by the lawful and ordinary usages of war, have 
*' hung botii these men without the formality of a trial; that 
" to allow them every possible opportunity of refuting the 
^' proofs, or of showing any circumstance in extenuation of 



Algernon Sidney. 29 

*• their crimes, he gave them the benefit of a trial by a court 
" martial of highly respectable officers." Can you expect 
us to forget, that in contempt of the opinion of this court of 
highly respectable officers, (who would have spared Ambris- 
ter's life,) deaf to the pleadings of mercy, steeling his breast 
against compassion, from whatever quarter it addressed him, 
the General, of his own mere will, doomed liim to die the 
death ? 

You endeavour to establish, that the Spanish commandant 
at St. Marks, and the Governor of Pensacola, were them- 
selves incendiaries, and accomplices with Arbuthnot, in in- 
citing the Seminoles, the outlawed Red Sticks and the Ne- 
groes, to war against us. Do you mean that Spain and the 
world may follow your reasoning to its consequences, and in- 
fer that if General Jackson liad hanged the Spanish comman- 
dant and Governor, the government of the United States would 
have approved and vindicated the deed ? 

When you describe the well founded objections of Arbuth- 
not against the competency of most suspicious hearsay testi- 
mony, adduced against him, as " technical cavils at the na- 
" ture of part of the evidence," I must suppose you have ne- 
ver bestowed a thought on the subject, much more examined 
the authorities he referred to. I assure you they are directly 
in point, and conclusive ; and I say, with perfect confidence, 
that such evidence was never before heard by any American 
tribunal, civil or military, in a case of life and death, much 
more taken as a ground of capital conviction and sentence. 

The remaining subjects of difference between tis must be 
postponed to another letter. Be assured, I am not the per- 
sonal, nor even the political, enemy of General Jackson, or 
of the President, or of yourself. My motives and my objects 
are intirely of a public nature, and concern wiiat I conceive 
to be the general weal. ...It is my understanding, not my heart, 
that has dictated these lines. I am possessed with no angrv 
feeling or party spirit on the subject. I have feelings, indeed, 
of another kind, which, as an American and a christian, 1 am 
not ashamed to have avowed ; of which, since I learn .thev 



80 Algernon Sidney. 

are censuied at Washington, I am proud to repeat the avowal. 
The fate of Arbuthnot and Ambrister moves me to pity and 
regret. Homo sum; humani nihil () me alienum puio. Were 
they the vilest felons, murderers, cannibals, I should still have 
viewed their death with horror, if inflicted without an un- 
doubted legal sanction. Whatever were their crimes, they 
were intitled to justice; and I would never tolerate an irre- 
gularity of trial and punishment, because the victims are 
worthless or odious; since the same injustice that smites the 
guilty to day, may to morrow shed the blood of the innocent. 
Were these men ever so regularly and justly tried, convicted 
and condemned, 1 should still have claimed some respite for 
them, to arrange their affairs, to bid a last farewell to their 
families and friends, and to make their peace with Heaven. 
While I admit, that in such a case this would have been a 
subject for the General alone to consider; I think there was 
no need, on the present occasion, for the usual pronjptitude 
of military execution ; and if you will give your attention to 
this part of the transaction, I cannot doubt but you will agree 
with me in this respect at least. I appeal to the affections of 
the son, the husband and the father, in your own bosom, and 
to the sympathies of our common nature. 

ALGERNON SIDNEY. 
P. S. Justice and decency require, that I acknowledge my 
obligation to The Enquirer, of the 15th December, for a con- 
siderable part of the argument in the above paper. 

A. S. 



From the Richmond Enquirer, of January 12, 1819. 
TO THE HONORABLE JOHN qUINCY ADAMS, 

SECRETARY OF STATE. 

Sir, — ^Your letter to Mr. Erving refers to a vast mass of 
evidence, of which I have not been able with the utmost pains 
and diligence to collect the whole, if indeed the whole be yet 



Algernon Sidney, 31 

published. If I were to form a judgment from the evidence 
I liave seen, I should certainly regard your representation of 
the late transactions in Florida, as the rhetorical exaggeration 
of eloquence and zeal, rather tlian the fair deduction of rea- 
son and justice. Yet, for the honor of my country, I sincere- 
ly wish it may be correct. Neither do I mean to deny any 
pan of it. To controvert your conclusions, without a full 
view and thorough examination of the evidence from which 
they are drawn, were at once indecent and futile. I am thus 
embarrassed by the want of information as well as of ability; 
and am as sensible, as you would have me, of the inequality 
I labour under in the discussion. But I proceed in it with 
confidence; indued with a strength not my own, derived from 
my end, which is justice, and my weapons, truth and reason. 
I^et all the facts you assert, be granted: that Spain, either 
through weakness or bad faith, failed to fulfil the stipulations 
of her treaty with the United States, in neglecting to employ 
an adequate force to restrain the Indians, residing within her 
territory, from hostilities against us : that her officers in Flo- 
rida admitted a foreign incendiary into that province, with 
full knowledge of his wicked designs: that the " complicity" 
of the commandant at St. Marks and the Governor of Pen- 
sacola, with that incendiary, with the Seminoles, the outlawed 
Red Sticks, and the Negroes, is really "demonstrated:" 
that those officers took an active part in inciting this barbari- 
an war against us; encouraged the devastation of our frontier, 
by affording a market for the spoil; supplied our savage foe 
with the means of war, and gave him shelter and protection 
in their fortresses. Let it be supposed, that the power of de- 
claring war, and that yet higher attribute of sovereignty, the 
power of making war without any previous declaration of if, 
are lawfully vested in Major General Andrevv Jackson, com- 
mander of the division of the South. All I ask you to grant 
on your part (and I hope it will be thought a reasonable j9oa- 
tulatum) is, that he, lik^ the sovereign of every other civilized 
people, is bound to observe the established laws of nature 
and nations. 



62 Mgernon Sidney. 

Did all the wrongs combined of which we complain, fur-^ 
nish justifiable cause of war against Spain or her dependencies, 
without a previous representation of them to her government, 
without a formal demand of redress for the past and security 
for the future, and refusal or unreasonable delay, on her part, 
to comply with such demand? To determine this question, 
sir, let us appeal to approved authority, in the first place, 
and then to examples, with which, happily, our own history 
abounds. 

Vattel says — '* A sovereign ought to show in all his quar- 
" rels, a sincere desire of rendering justice and preserving 
" peace. He is obliged, before he takes up arms, and after 
*' having taken them up also, to ofler equitable conditions; and 
" then alone his arms become just against an obstinate enemy, 
" who refuses to listen to jnsiice or to equity.''''* "His own 
" advantage, and that of human society, oblige him to attempt, 
'* before he takes up arms, all the pacific methods of obtaining 
" either reparation of the injury or a just satisfaction; at least, 
" if he has nat good reason to dispense with it. This mode- 
" ration, this circumspection is so much the more proper and 
" commonly even indispensable, as the action we take for an in- 
" jury, does not always proceed from a design to offend us, 
♦' and is sometimes rather a mistake than an act of malice ; 
^^ frequently, it even happens, that the injury is done by inferi- 
" or persons, without their sovereign having any share in it ; 
" and on these occasions, it is natural to presume, that he 
" would not refuse us a just satisfaction. When some inferi- 
*' or persons violated, not long ago, the territory of Savoy, in 
'' carry i«g from thence a noted chief of the smugglers, the 
^' King of Sardinia caused his complaints to be carried to the 
" court of France; and Louis XV, did not think it beneath 
" him, to send an ambassador extraordinary to Turin, to give 
•' satisfaction for that violence."f " It would be too contra- 
" ry to the peace, the repose and the safety of nations, to 

- . • ■ • ~ 

* VctteVs Law of Nations, Book 11. chap. XFIII. ^ 336. 
t Ibid. % 338. 



Mgernon Sidney. 33 

" their mutual commerce, and to the duties which bind them 
" to each other, for any one suddenly to apply to force, with- 
*' out knowing whether the other is disposed to do him justice 
" or to refuse it.^^* " Those ivho run to arms without nece.ssi- 
** ty, are the scourges of the human race, barbarians, enemies 
** to society, and rebels to the law of nature, or rather to the 
" common father of mankind. "1 I leave it to you to make 
the application. 

I know, sir, there are exceptions to these general princi- 
ples ; cases, in which there is good reason to dispense with the 
observance of them. " If any one would ravage from a na- 
*' tion an essential right, or a right without which it could not 
" hope to subsist; if an ambitious neighbour threatens the li- 
" berty of a republic; if he resolve to subdue it, and bring it 
** into subjection; that republic will take council only from 
" its courage. It will not even attempt to wait tlie method of 
" conferences on so odious a pretension : it will bring into 
" this quarrel all its efforts, its last resources, and all the best 
'' blood it is capable of shedding. It is risking every thing 
" only to listen to the least proposition; then they may truly 
" say, una salus — nullam sjierare salutem.''''X And again — 
" It is not always necessary to authorise having recourse to 
" arms, that all the methods of reconciliation have been ex- 
'• pressly rejected; it is sufficient that there is the utmost rea- 
" son to believe, that the enemy would not even enter into 
" those measures with sincerity', that the issue of them could 
" not be happy, and that a delay could only tend to put the 
" State in greater danger of being oppressed. This maxim 
" is incontestible, but the application of it to practice is very 
" delicate. A sovereign, who would not be considered as the 
"disturber of the public repose, will not be induced abruptly 
" to attack him who has not refused pacific measures, if he is 
*' not able to justify to the whole world, that he has reason 
" to consider these appearances of peace, as an artifice tend- 

* VaticVs Law of Nations, Book 11. chap. XFIIL ^] 343. 
i [Lid. ^S 354. t Jbid. & 332. 



34 Mgernon Sidneij, 

" ing to amuse and surprise him. To pretend to be atithor 
" ised by his mere suspicions alone, is to shake all the foun- 
" dations of the safety of nations."* That our case falls not 
within either of these exceptions, there is no need of argument 
to prove. I am spared that labour. Our government has 
oflered to restore to Spain the possessions conquered from her 
by General Jackson ; though whether the offer be of any avail 
or not, without his concurrence, may well admit of doubt; 
since his conduct is approved and justified throughout, and, 
consequently, his power of waging war against Spain, and 
of conquering her dominions, is in effect allowed. Now, in 
general, he in whom the power of making war resides, is 
alone competent to adjust the basis of accommodation, whe- 
ther the uti possidetis or status quo ante bellum. The Consti- 
tution of the United States is anomalous in that respect. — To 
return : the restoration of her possessions to Spain, amounts 
to a distinct admission by our government, that the wrongs 
eommitted against us by her constituted no such privation 
or invasion of our essential rights, and afforded no such rea- 
son to apprehend danger to our safety from the delays inci- 
dent to negotiation, as to justify, according to the principles 
of the law of nations, an abrupt and unceremonious recourse 
to arms. This alone were conclusive. But more; at the very 
moment of General Jackson's irruption into Florida, and of 
his forcible seizure of Pensacola and its dependencies, a ne- 
gotiation was actually pending between the United States and 
Spain, the objects of which were compensation for all the in- 
juries we complain of at her hands, and the cession of both 
the Floridas. 

If the doctrines quoted from Vattel, were less unequivocal 
and authoritative than they are, I should still find ample sup- 
port for the opinions I entertain, in the invariable practice of 
our own government, through a series of years, uuder every 
administration, in a variety of eases, and those of imcompa- 
Fably greater urgency and importance than that in which Ge- 

* VatteVs Law of JVations, Book 11. chap, XVIII. § 334. 



Mgernon Sidney. 35 

iieral Jackson saw no remedy but instant war. Examples 
rise in quick succession, to condemn his rash (not to say mad) 
recourse to arms, and to confound his defenders. The reten- 
tion of the western posts by Great Britain, in violation of the 
treaty of peace ; the spoliations, to the amount of millions, 
committed by France upon our commerce, before and during 
your father's administration; the denial by Spain of our right 
of deposit at New-Orleans, contrary to her solemn engage- 
ments; the attack upon the Chesapeake, than which a more 
shameful abuse of the hospitality, and violent outrage upon 
the sovereignty, of the nation, can hardly be imagined; the 
impressment of our seamen, by British cruisers, on the high 
seas, in spite of their protections, persisted in for years; the 
sacrifice of neutral rigiits to belligerent interests, which was 
the avowed purpose and certain effect of the French, Berlin 
and Milan decrees, and the British orders in council : all 
these wrongs were the subject of long and patient negotia- 
tion. Nor did the nation resort to arms except in one single 
case; and then not till every effort of negotiation, every 
milder method of redress and contravention, had, in the opi- 
nion of the government, been tried in vain and exhausted. I 
know, that the history of military governments furnishes cases 
enough of a contrary complexion ; and if we imitate their ex- 
ample, we shall as justly deserve, as we shall surely incur, 
the same punishment which Providence has visited on their 
folly and madness. . 

But, to my utter astonishment, yon intimate an opinion, 
that the proceedings of General Jackson in Florida, ought 
not to be regarded as measures of hostility against Spain. 
But for the weakness of that power, and the imbecility of her 
government, she would resent such an insinuation as an insult 
more unpardonable than the injury. Neither General Jack- 
son's acts are equivocal, nor are his motives and designs left 
to conjecture. As to St. Marks, if the facts were as you state 
(and I may not contradict your facts,) that " as he approach- 
" ed that place, he was informed, direct from the Governor of 
'• Pensacola, that a party of hostile Indians had threatened to 



36 Algernon Sidney. 

" seize the Fort, and that lie apprehended the Spanish garri- 
" son there was not in sutricient strength to defend it against 
" them;" I will not deny that he was warranted by the law of 
nations (supposing the orders of his own government imposed 
no restraint upon him) " in anticipating his enemy, by the 
" amicable, and that being refused, by the forcible occupa- 
'* tion of the Fort." But, for his operations against Pcnsa- 
cola, no such excuse is pretended. They amount to open 
war, in form, irj fact and in consequence. I want no evi- 
dence but his own. In his letter to the Spanish Governor, of 
the 27th April, 1818, he details the facts, which, in his judg- 
ment, proved the unjust conduct of the Spanish agents in Flo- 
rida, and concludes with a distinct menace of war: "Their 
"conduct," he says, "can no longer be tolerated; and al- 
" though a republic, fond of peace, the United States know 
" her rights, and, at (he expense of ivar, will maintain tlietn." 
The meaning of this menace was not long left doubtful ; it 
was not by the United States acting by the constituted autho- 
rity alone competent to such a njeasure, but by the United 
States acting by the instrumentality of Gen. Jackson's heart, 
head and hand, deliberating, resolving, executing, through 
his will and power, that the rights of the nation were to be 
maintained at the expense of war. The language of his let- 
ter to the Spanish Governor of the 23d May, demanding the 
surrender of Pcnsacola and the Barancas, is explicit: "If 
" (says he) the peaceable surrender be refused, I shall enter 
" Pensacola by violence, and assume the government until 
" the transaction can be amicably adjusted between the two 
" governments. The military in that case must be treated as 
''prisoners of ivary The peaceable surrender was refused: 
the General instantly proceeded to violence, and captured the 
town, the fort, the citizens and the garrison. In his official 
despatch, of the 2d June, he calls the Spaniards " a conquer- 
" ed enemy :^^ he states that the articles of capitulation, "with 
" but one condition, amount to a complete cession to the Uni- 
" ted States, of that portion of the Floridas hitherto under the 
'^government of Don Jose Masot,'''' the Spanish Governor of 



Algernon Sidneij. 37 

Pensacola; and lliat he had organized a provisional govern- 
ment; rescinded tlie Spanish commercial code; established 
the revenue laws of the United States, and appointed a col- 
lector. With respect to Spain, tliis was not only war, but 
conquest; with respect to the United States, it was something 
more; it was tlie exercise of powers of legislation, belonging 
exclusively to Congress, and of the power of appointment, 
confided to the President and Senate. 

I have only two more observations to add on this part of 
the subject. The first is, that while I agree (hat the Floridas 
n'ould be a vakiuble acquisition to the United States, and one 
which it is wise and right in us to insist on, I should think 
them dearly purchased at the expense of our own character 
for moderation and justice, much more at the expense of the 
Constitution. The other is, that discarding all respect for 
the laws of nations, all concern for the rights of Spain, sound 
policy required, that for our own sake, General Jackson's pro- 
ceedings in Florida should have been disavowed, disapproved 
and reprehended by our government. I doubt if you could 
have devised a course better calculated to prevent the volun- 
tary cession of that province by Spain to the United States, 
than this open contempt of her sovereignty. You have piqued 
her pride, and confirmed her obstinacy ; and while u spark of 
life shall animate lier sinking empire, the sense of the indig- 
nity will still rankle at her heart, and I fear withhold her from 
the relinquishment of a territory, useless to her own power 
and interest, and beneficial only to us; a cession which sound 
policy not only justifies us in demanding, but should prompt 
her to make. And, if at last we go to war with her, (as vve 
probably soon shall) we may find, in the jealousies excited 
abroad, and divisions at home, if not in the dispensations of 
Providence, that it is an immutable maxim of wisdom and 
policy " to be absolutely certain always in whatever contest 
'• we are engaged, that our adversary be in the wrong." 

Hitherto, I have considered General Jackson's conduct with 
a view- to its bearing on our relations with Spain; but these 
transactions present other questions of far deeper interest, 



38 Mgernon Sidney. 

touching the relations between that officer and the Executive, 
and between the Executive and the nation. 

It is now ascertained beyond doubt, from the documents 
accompanying the President's message to Congress (if some 
information be not purposely withheld from the public, which 
I am far from suspecting) that in his hostile operations against 
the dominions and subjects of Spain, General Jackson acted 
not only without orders from government, but directly con- 
trary to orders. The government hesitated long, before it 
would authorise its forces, to cross the line into Florida, in 
quest of their savage foe; and when at last it gave the order, 
its instructions were marked with a caution, suitable to the 
delicacy and importance of the measure. You inform us 
yourself, " that the officer in command immediately before 
" General Jackson, was specially instructed to respect, as far 
" as possible, the Spanish authorit}', wherever it was main- 
" tained; and copies of those orders were furnislied General 
" Jackson, upon his taking the command." To ascertain 
General Jackson's instructions, therefore, we must refer to 
those which had been given to General Gaines. It seems 
General Gaines had suggested the propriety of such instruc- 
tions: which, nevertheless, (as we learn from the two, letters 
to that officer, from Mr. Graham, acting Secretary of War, 
of the 30th October and 2d December 1817) had been twice 
refused, as unnecessary and impolitic. The instructions that 
were at length given him from the War Department, appear in 
two letters of the Secretary, Mr. Calhoun, of the 9th and 
16th December. In tlie first, the Secretary says: " Refer- 
*' ring to the letters addressed to you fi'om this department, 
" on the 30th of October and 2d of December, as manifest- 
♦' ing the views of the President, I have to request that you 
" conform to the instructions therein given. Should the Indi- 
" ans, however, assemble in force on the Spanish side of the 
" line, and persevere in committing hostilities within the li- 
♦' mits of the United States, you will in that event exercise a 
" sound discretion, as to the propriety of crossing the line, 
"for the purpose of attacking them and breaking up their 



Mgevnon Sidney. 39 

" tcnvns;" thus regulating his discretion in the execution ol 
his orders, by designating the objects to which he was to con- 
fine his operations. The other letter is in these words: "On 
*' the receipt of this letter, should the Seminole Indians still 
** refuse to make reparation for their outrages and depreda- 
•' tions OD the citizens of the United States, it is the wish of 
*' the President, that you consider yourself at liberty to march 
" across tlie Florida line, and to attack them within its limits, 
•' should it be found necessary ^ unless they, should shelter them- 
" selves under a Spanish fort. In the last event, you will im- 
" mediately notify this department.'''' Here, the government 
warily and expressly reserves to itself, the control and direc- 
tion of any measures that might affect the neutrality of Spain. 
In my opinion, General Jackson violated these orders when 
he seized St. Marks: it was a measure, which the orders did 
not place within his discretion, and before he took such a step, 
he ought to have consulted his government. But the Gover- 
nor of Pensacola, we are told, had given him an apology for 
that proceeding. For the seizure of Pensacola (I repeat) no 
such apology can be pretended. Before he marched against 
that place, he must have given his instructions to the winds. 
Upon what plea does he rest his excuse for this violation of 
his orders? JVeccwi^y again. " On the immutable principle 
'* of self-defence authorised by the law of nature and nations, 
" have I bottomed all my operations." He conquered Pen- 
sacola on the 2Sih May, on the immutable principle of self-de- 
fence ! He, who believed as early as the 29th April, that "the 
'* Indian war was at an end, and should it be renewed, the 
** position he had taken, would enable a small party to put ii* 
*' down promptly!" Jfe, who declared on the 26th April, 
that the Indians " had not the power, if the will remained, ot" 
•' again annoying our frontier !" 

Why has this officer been permitted to transcend his instruc- 
tions ? to counteract the declared policy of the Exccufive? to 
take measures on the strength of his own judgment alone, 
that directly affect the peace of the nation? measures, which 
llie government expressly told him. it did not intend to placr 



40 M^ernon Sidney. 

within his discretion? Wliy has he not been punished? Whi' 
not even called to account? Why has he been countenanced, 
justified, applauded? Hearken, sir, at length, to the warnings 
of experience; open your eyes to the light of history; and 
you will learn, that the government, which tolerates open dis- 
obedience, in eifect relinquishes its authority, and the soldier, 
who may violate his orders with impunity, soon comes to dic- 
tate orders to his superiors. 

If General Jackson had only disobeyed and violated his or- 
ders; if his offence had gone no farther than the prostration 
of the Executive authority and dignity; even this had been 
inexcusable and most pernicious. But would to God this 
were the /t(iOf/ and front of his offending ! He has violated 
the Constitution of the United States in one of its most es- 
sential provisions. In vain liave the people and the States 
confided their peace and honour to the keeping of their re- 
presentatives; in vain has the Constitution ordained, that 
Congress alone shall have the power of declaring war; if a 
military officer may wage war according to his own judgment 
of necessity or propriety, and if the approbation of the Exe- 
cutive be suliicient to justify the act. 

You need not be informed, sir, that General Jackson is not 
directly responsible to Congress or to the nation: that he is 
amenable to the Executive, at whose j)Ieasure he holds his 
commission; and that responsibility to the nation, in such 
cases, rests on the Executive alone. When the Executive ap- 
proves and justifies, or acquiesces in the conduct of a milita- 
ry officer, it makes itself accountable for his faults, if any 
faults have been committed. 

Upon the present occasion, I at first put my whole trust in 
the President, upon whose firmness and vigor I securely' re- 
lied. His silence from the beginning surprised me; his mes- 
sage to Congress alarmed me; his earnest approbation of 
General Jackson's whole conduct, lately given to the nation 
and to the world, through the medium of your letter, has 
finally disappointed all expectations of redress at his hands. 
If he had brousrht General Jackson to trial belbre a court- 



Algernon Sidney, 4t 

martial, if he had only appointed a court of inquiry to ex- 
amine and report the facts, with its opinion upon them; if 
General Jackson had demanded a court martial or a court of 
inquiry, though the court martial had acquitted him; though 
the court of inquiry had not recommended an arrest and trial 
before a general court martial; I had never offered a murmur 
against either the General or the Executive. Its duty would! 
have been at least ostensibly fulfilled; the dignit}' of the gov- 
ernment decently sustained; the Constitution in some degree 
vindicated, and the evil of the example discharged of some 
portion of its malignity. 

M> next hope was in Congress; that it would express its 
opinion in a tone that would rouse the Executive to action, 
and assert with effect the supremacy of the civil authority 
over the military. And though that hope be waning, it is 
not dead. I have watched the course of the government of 
the United States for thirty years, from its origin to this day, 
with an attention habitually awake to sucli subjects, and I do 
not remember one single instance, in which Congress has in- 
terposed, with any earnestness or effect, to correct an abuse in 
the Executive department of the government. Yet, such is 
the peculiar and alarming character of the present case, that 
I will not despair of an efficient effort by the representatives 
of the people and of the States, to vindicate the fundamental 
principles of the Constitution, and defend their own rights 
and powers from invasion and destruction. 

jMy last, best hope, is in the virtue and good sense of the 
collective body of the people. I have endeavoured, (I know 
not with what success) to rouse their attention to these strange 
transactions; satisfied with Dr. Johnson, that "on subjects, 
" on whicii the public thinks long, it commonly attains to 
" think right;" an opinion, which is the very fundamental 
principle of i-epublican institutions. If they too remain un- 
moved and supine, I pronounce that the Constitution is hence- 
forth, to all practical purposes^ essentially changed. Its 
squinting towards monarchy will soon become more awful 
than ever; and the i'rown upon its brow, and the blood upon 
9> 



42 Algernon Sidney. 

its visage, forebode greater terrors and deeper horrors tliau 
the prophet gave us warning of. Nor will any thing remain 
to nie, but to await in silence that new struggle for liberty, to 
which the freemen of this country will at no distant day be 
called; prepared, when the trial shall come, to bear my part, 
according to the measure of capacity it has pleased God to 
bestow upon me. 

ALGERNON SIDNEY. 



From the Richmond Enquirer, of January 14, 1819. 
TO THE EDITOR OF THE ENQUIRER. 

Sir,. ...My attention has been so engrossed with Mr. Secre- 
tary Adams's letter to Mr. Erving, that I forgot the honour- 
able notice bestowed upon me, by a writer in the National 
Intelligencer of the 28th and 29th of December, who signs 
himse\( Fiat Justitia ; an ominous signature, perhaps; and 
not the less so, because the author seems to have no idea of 
the precise import of the phrase. If my signature lead any 
one to think me an Englishman, his will betray no man into 
the mistake that he is a Roman. I had not intended to reply 
to him at all; for what would be the use of arguing with a 
man, who is so unacquainted with our institutions, as to be- 
lieve, that Congress is the tribunal to decide on General Jack- 
son's case; and who seriously demands of me, to point out 
the distinction in principle, between the proclamation of mar- 
tial law and the impressment of a horse? But he has stated 
one or two facts, which 1 think deserve notice. 

I introduced the grant of lands by the Creeks to General 
Jackson, in my first letter, by remarking that I was sorry (I 
was sincerely so) to say any thing, which might seem to affect 
}iis private character; of which not knowing any evil, I was 
careful not to speak any harm. Nor should I have alluded 
to the fact, if it had not been of a public nature, and of pub- 
lic consequence^ 



Algernon Sidney. 43 

The only information I Iiad, was drawn from the Journals 
of Congress. General Jackson was one of the commissioners 
for negotiating a treaty with the Creek Indians. The Creeks 
made a grant of land to him certainly, and, I believe, to others 
of the commissioners. The President recommended to Con- 
gress, that a law should be passed for confirming these grants. 
The bill for that purpose, was indefinitely postponed in the 
Senate (24th April 1816) the House of Representatives hav- 
ing previously (on the 16th) refused, by a large majority, 
even to consider it. Both Houses, doubtless, thought with 
me, that such a grant was contrary to the known policy of 
the government. Now, Mr. Fiat says that the Creeks press- 
ed the grant upon him contrary to his wishes, and even made 
his acceptance a condition of the treaty; and that when Gene- 
ral Jackson did accept the grant, he told them he would pre- 
vail with the President of the United States, to dispose of it 
for the benefit of the poor and distressed of their own nation. 
Of these facts, I never before heard the least suggestion or 
rumour: and whenever there shall be any better evidence of 
them, than the assertion of an anonymous writer, who himself 
does not state them as facts within his own knowledge, I shall 
be very ready to do the General justice, and acquit him of all 
improper or selfish motives. I do not ask such evidence as 
would be required in a court of justice; the General's own 
word will be. sufficient for me. Or, if any kind of proof can 
be adduced, that he endeavoured to prevail with the Presi- 
dent, to apply the grant to the charitable purposes that have 
been mentioned, I shall be satisfied. 1 do not wish to lay the 
least blame to him, but what the naked truth may import. 
He has enough to bear; and I have no personal resentments, 
no private ends, to gratify or accomplish. 

This writer states another fact : that the President and the 
Secretary of War, Mr. Calhoun, have assented to the princi- 
ple of Gen. Jackson's order of April 18, 1817, forbidding the 
officers of his division (which means in this case military dis- 
trict) to obey the orders of the War Department, unless com- 
municated through him. How that affair was adjusted, I can- 



44 Als^ernon Sidney. 

not tell... .Bat this I know, that in the summer of 1817, after 
that order was published, an order was sent direct from the 
War Department to the commandant of the forts and garri- 
sons of Norfolk in this State; and that the order was obeyed. 
1 expected General Jackson would arrest the officer; but he 
did not. 1 concluded he had x'ielded the point. I should, 
now, have very little confidence in Mr. Fiafs information, if 
it were not in some measure corroborated by a letter from the 
General to the Secretary of War, of 20ih January 1818, in 
which I mark this passage: "Your letter inclosing your or- 
" der of the 29th ultimo has been received. Like yourself, I 
" have no other feelings to gratify, than those connected with 
*' the public good; and it gives me pleasure to find that we 
" coincide in those opinions calculated to produce it. Respon- 
" sib'lity now rests where it should, on the officer issuing the 
" oru< r, and the principle acknowledged is calculated to in- 
" sur<> that subordination, so necessary to the harmonious 
" movement of every part of the military machine." What 
are the opinions in which they coincided What the principle 
acknowledged^ If it turn out, that the principle of General 
Jackson's division order, has been assented to by the Execu- 
tive, I pledge myself to take up the subject with Mr. Secre- 
tary Calhoun, in a military as well as constitutional point of 
view, and to show that it is preposterous and dangerous in 
the extreme. What this Mr. Fiat calls military science (which 
I thought quite another thing) is not confined to the army. 

This writer, speaking of a fact I stated on the authority of 
General Jackson's biographer,^ politely tells me — this is un- 
true; because, forsooth, I omitted to mention a circumstance, 
which having come to General Jackson's knowledge many 
months after the transaction of which I complained, could 
not have entered into the motives of bis conduct, and, there- 
fore, had no bearing on the argument. The writers in the 
N'-rthern prints who have thought proper to comment on my 
letitrs, have given us still prettier specimens of that sort of 
politei-ess, which adorns the conversation of common soldiers 
v/hen they supoose their ofticers are out of hearing. Per- 
haps they learned their manners in that school. 



Algernon Sidney, 45 

I am reprehended for calling Mr. Duncan the noted Dun- 
can. I will explain ilie reason of the epithet. I understood 
this to he the same man who acknowledged on oath, that he 
advised General Wilkinson to make a false copy of a letter, 
and to swear that it was a true one. If I am mistaken in 
the identity, I heartily ask Mr. Aid de Camp Duncan's par- 
don. 

Mr. Fiat is offended with me for calling necessity the ty- 
ranCs plea. If the expression had not become proverbial, I 
should have acknowledged that I borrowed it from Milton — 
" So spake the fiend, and with necessity, 
" The Tyrant's plea, excused his devilish deedsJ** 

It is not my fault, that my catalogue of General Jackson's 
misdeeds is black, any more than that it is long. I heartily 
wish its complexion could be changed, and its length cur- 
tailed. 

I expected to be accused of malevolence towards General 
Jackson, and prepared my mind to bear that piece of injus- 
tice J namque in hoc tempore, obsequium arnicas, Veritas odium, 
par it. 

I expected, too, to be called Englishman and Tory, and ta 
be charged with British feelings and propensities ; these be- 
ing the invariable answers, which a certain class of politi- 
cians in this country (whose capacities can only be expressed 
in negative quantities) always make to whatever they find un- 
deniable in fact or irrefragable in argument. I shall not de- 
fend myself against a charge I despise. But I will tell these 
gentlemen, that what the}' denounce as British feelings and 
propensities, are Virginia feelings and propensities. I know, 
that I represent the sentiments of the great majority of the 
good people of this Commonwealth, including many of our 
best and wisest men. As for myself, I am (thank my stars) 
a native Virginian, descended from native Virginian ances- 
tors on all sides for many generations. 

There is one observation, however, which I have heard 
from all quarters, that I certainly never anticipated. I have 
heard these papers called bold, very bold. I protest I did not 



46 Mgernon Sidtiey, 

mean them so. I have lived to see Washinj^ton and JeiFersou 
(to name no others) treated with the most unbounded freedom 
in the public prints — all their measures arraigned, their mo- 
tives impue:ned; the one charged with French, and the other 
British propensities ; and the private character of the latter 
wantonly exposed and traduced. I have known the present 
President successively charged with French and British pro- 
pensities. Whatever men thought of all this, I never heard 
their public accusers charged with boldness. What is there 
in General Jackson's character or services, which should ex- 
empt his conduct from public examination? Is it that he has 
an army at his command? The evil of his example has at- 
tained to a g;reater height than even I imagined, if men's 
raiuds are so afiected with the fear of his power, that they 
think me bold. Perhaps the government is right to temporise. 
For my part, as I entertain no personal ill will towards him, 
so neither do I stand in the least fear of him. 

ALGERNON SIDNEY. 



From the Richmond Enquirer, of February 4, 1819. 

TO THE EDITOR OF THE ENQUIRER. 

Sir, — The Extract of a letter from Washington, which you 
have copied into your paper of the 2d, would probably have 
altogether escaped my attention, if you had not republished it j 
and would certainly have passed without the least notice from 
me, if I did not infer, from your manner of calling my attention 
to it, that you wish or expect me, to repel the imputation of 
personal hostility towards General Jackson. I have already 
solemnly declared, that I am not his personal enemy; and 
what can I say more ? He has done me no private wrong, 
nor indeed any public injury, which is not common to me 
with every freeman in the Union. I have done him no inju- 
ry, public or private : unless it be an injury, to examine hi? 



Algernon Sidiiey. 47 

ofiicial conduct and character, carefully referring to the evi- 
dence of every material fact I asserted! unless it be an inju- 
ry, to vindicate public right against his open and unatoned 
violations, laying the reasons of my opinions fairly before the 
world! The language of General Jackson's defenders is, for 
the most part, calculated to increase, ratiier than to .allay, our 
fears and indignation. In their opinion, he is privileged, not 
only from any kind of legal inquiry or trial, but from all 
manner of public discussion. In their opinion, no press is 
free or faithful to the general weal, which publishes any thing 
concerning him, but pure panegyric; and no editor is repub- 
lican, wiio does not exclude from his columns, all complaint, 
ail inquiry, all argument, concerning abuses ot power by the 

Executive or by the military' Those who complain of you, 

Mr. Ruchie, would never have incurred the pains of the sedi- 
tion law. 

The treatment I have experienced at their hands is curious 
enough. They have taken great pains to manifest their coji- 
tempt of me; not perceiving, that in respect to me, their con- 
duct refutes their language ; and that their aflectation of su- 
periority, makes them at once disgusting and ridiculous. One 
describes my st^'le as spongy and verbose; another calls it a 
seriatim style; a third, (whose whole force consists in the free 
use of italics, in which, to do him justice, he cuts a figure) 
considers my arguments as too sophistical to deserve a seri- 
ous answer; and hardly any of them will allow me common 
sense or information about the most ordinary affairs. All 
irony apart, I am really and heartily obliged to them. They 
have efiectually drawn the public attention to my humble ex- 
ertions in the public cause, and even given them some conse- 
quence in the public opinion. 

I exempt Amicus Justitia from all complaint on the score 
of ill manners. His language is that of a gentleman. His 
only reason for thinking me ungenerous is that he differs with 
me in opinion. His main argument against me, consists sim- 
ply in the conversion of a precept of the law of nations into 
a piece of advice. 



48 Mgernon Sidney, 

I bespeak the pardon of Hampden Junior, lor mentioning 
hlni in the same breath with the others; though he speaks in 
a tone of authority which ill becomes an address to the pub- 
lic. I am half tempted to enter the lists with him; and no- 
thing withholds me from it, but the consideration, that I could 
effect no end of public good by continuing the discussion. 
Let him be assured, that I am as warm a friend of State rights 
as he would have mc. At the same time, I do not acknow- 
ledge, that he has any authority to direct, in what public 
questions and on what occasions I sJiall take a part. I am 
very sorry to find, that there is one very serious difference be- 
tween us on this head of politics. His jealousies of the en- 
croachments of the general government, are directed only to 
tiie Judicial and L/Cgislative branches. Now min€ extend to 
the federal Executive also^ and to the Executive chiefly, which 
wields the whole patronage and the whole military force of 
the nation. Congress has never proclaimed martial law, nor 
have the federal Judges ever hanged a man without a fair trial. 
Let the power of war and peace, no matter under what pre- 
text or in what form, be conceded to the Executive; and the 
only remaining distinction between the President and a limit- 
ed monarch, will be the elective character of the former; and 
some State necessity will soon arise, which will furnish a fair 
opportunity of proving, that that is a distinction witljout a 
difference. The Emperor of Austria is, or was before the 
French revolution, elective! In these remarks, 1 beg you will 
understand, that I am speaking of principles not men; of the 
regular operation of political causes, not of the motives or 
objects of particular statesmen. 

Whether this gentleman has succeeded in showing, " that, 
" having left undone those things which I ought to have done, 
'"' and done those things which I ought not to have done, I am 
*' not entitled to much consideration," 1 will not presume to 
determine: but this I know, that if his conclusion follow from 
his premises, no mortal man is "entitled to much considera- 
" tron." Even Plato and Socrates will lose much of the ve- 
neration that belongs to their cliaracters I am very indif- 



Algernon Sidney, 49 

icrent concerning the reputation of the hasty papers I have 
written under this signature: humble as my ambition is, I 
build no hopes of fame on an occasional essay in the news- 
papers. Yet it is not the single opinion of Hampden Junior, 
or of any other individual, that can even settle the degree of 
consideration to which 1 am entitled; much less is his autho- 
rity either competent or suflicient, to determine, without ar- 
gument, the great questions which General Jackson's conduct 
has brought before the nation. 

I am not a little surprised that this writer should charge me 
'' with denying to General Jackson the merit of defending 
" New-Orleans" ! I did in express terms, and in as handsome 
terms too as I could possibly find, allow him fr.ll credit for 
that defence. And I shall add, that if his energy had been 
directed only against the enemy, if he had respected the con- 
stitutional liberty of his countrymen, if he had not lately 
broken through all rule, and trampled on the principles dear- 
test to the hearts of freemen ; 1 myself would have lent a hand 
to bind around his brow, laurels that would not wither, and 
honours that would never fade. But I have no eulogies to 
bestow upon him now. 1 am not that lamb " which licks the 
hand, just raised to shed its blood," though it be the same 
hand that once fed me; nor have I either gratitude or venera- 
tion for the man, who in my opinion, has inflicted a vital 
wound upon the Constitution of my country. 

Algernon Sidney. 



56 Appendix. 

we are imjDelled to this discussion by considerations that are 
irresistible. We think it due to the character of our country 
to disclaim a transaction which may affect it in the eyes of 
foreign nations, and it is due to our own institutions to re- 
probate an obiioxious course on the part of a high military 
officer, which may be drawn into precedent by other com- 
manders. 

The documents before iis prove that Arbuthnot was not 
hung as a spy, as had been commonly but erroneously imagin- 
ed. The court maitial themselves strike out from the second 
charge the words ^^ acting as a spy^^ — and certainly with strict 
propriety, because the very letter which is said to have been 
written for the purpose " of detailing the advance of the army 
" under General Jackson, stating their force, probable move- 
" ments and intentions, to be communicated to Bowlegs, the 
" chief of the Suwany towns, for his government," was writ- 
ten from St. Marks, five days before they entered it; and by 
the 101st article of war, a spy is defined to be one (not a ci- 
tizen) " lurking in or about the fortifications or encampments 
" of the armies of the United States." 

The charges upon which they were found guilty were of a 
different description : 

Arbuthnot was found guilty, 1st. of " exciting and stirring 
*' up the Creek Indians to war against the United States and 
" her citizens, he being a subject of Great Britain, with whom 
" the United States are at peace:" 2dly. of "aiding, abetting 
" and comforting the enemy, supplying them with the means 
"of war." — Ambrister was found guilty, 1st. of "aiding, 
" abetting and comforting the enemy, and supplying them 
" with the means of war, he being a subject of Great Britain, 
'' who are at peace with the United States, and lately an offi- 
" cer in the British colonial tnarines;" 2dly. "leading and 
" commanding the lower Creek Indians in carrying on a war 
" against the United States" — to the last of which charges 
he pleaded guiltij, but urged justification. 

We shall not go particularly through the mass of evidence 
before us ; but it appears, that Arbuthnot did take a deep in- 



terest in the concerns of the Creek Indians. He did persuade 
them, that the Americans were bound by the treaty of Ghent 
to give up the lands which the Indians had previously ceded 
to us; and that the Americans were guilty of furiiier encroach- 
ments upon their soil. He did write, at the instance of the 
Indians, to the British minister, to the Governor of the Ba- 
hamas, to Nicholls, to the Spanish Governors at Havana and 
St. Augustine, in their behalf; complaining, in round terras of 
our aggressions; stating in some of these letters, the necessi- 
ty of stationing a British agent in the Indian country to watch 
over the interests of the savages; as the war advanced, he at- 
tempted in some of these letters, to obtain arms, ammunition 
and a " respectable force" to aid the Indians; and on the 
back of the letter to Mr. Bagot, were entered the number of 
warriors whom the Indians could send into the field, and the 
quantity of powder, flints, rifles and tomahawks which they 
wanted. It does appear that in these ways, Arbuthnot, a spe- 
cially authorised agent fired their minds, and thus wrought 
them up to deeds of barbarous warfare. But it does not appear, 
except from the repetition by a third person of the declarations 
of the Indians, (a species of evidence we suspect inadmissible 
in our courts) that he had directly "advised them to go to 
" war with the United States, if they did not surrender them 
•' the lands which had been taken from them, and that (he 
" British government would support them in it" — or that 
robberies on the United States settlements and " murders 
" committed on the Santilla river, were at his instigation." 
He did write to General Gaines, for King Hatchy, thus: "I 
" shall use force to stop any armed Americans from passing 
" my towns or my lands." — It would even seem, if his letter 
to Hambly is to be credited, that originally he had attempted 
to keep down their ferocity, and not act " the instigator of 
" theft and murder." It appears that on the 2d April, before 
our troops reached St. Marks, he writes to his son at Snwany, 
" the main drift of the Americans is to destroy the black po- 
" pulation of Suwany. Tell my friend Boleck (its military 
'' rhicf) that if i^ throwing away his people to attempt to re- 



58 Jlppendicc. 

" sist such a powerful force as will be down on Suwany. As 
*' soon as the Suwany is destroyed, I expect the Americans 
*' will be satisfied and retire." He did furnish the Indians 
with some ammunition, about ten kegs of powder, at Suwa- 
ny, and perhaps that article at other times; but he wishes us 
to believe in his defence, that it was only to supply the Indi- 
ans for hunting — though the presumption certainly is, to help 
them to carry on the war. — We conclude from this brief state- 
ment, that Arbuthnot's conduct was calculated, though it does 
not appear by strict legal evidence that it was intended, to 
hurry these fiery Indians into war; that he attempted to pro- 
cure for them arms, ammunition and some troops, to defend 
them at last: and that he did himself furnish them with a small 
quantity of ammunition. 

As to Ambrister's case it is stronger. It appears that he 
wore an uniform and sword; was busy in sending off a de- 
tachment to meet the American army — furnished the negro 
leaders in the Indian town with powder and lead, and " re- 
*' commended to them the making of ball, &,c. quickly." In- 
deed, he confesses that he had led the lower Creek Indians in 
carrying on a war against us; but pleads justification; the 
grounds of which do not appear. 

These were abominable acts — they are such as every Ame- 
rican must abhor. 

For these acts, Arbuthnot (" being a subject of Great Bri- 
'• tain, with whom the United States are at peace,") was sen- 
tenced to be hung, and was hung — Ambrister was first sen- 
tenced to be shot, but the court immediately reconsidered this 
sentence, and commuted the death for stripes and confinement 
" with a ball and chain to hard labour for twelve calendar 
" months." General Jackson, in his General Order " approves 
" the finding and first sentence of the court, and disapproves 
" the reconsideration of the sentence;" upon this extraordi- 
nary ground: 

" It appears, from the evidence and pleading of the pri- 
'' soner, that he did lead and command within the territory of 
'"' Spain (being a subject of Great Britain) the Indians in 



Jlppendix. 59 

" war against the United States, those nations being at peace. 
•' It is an established principle of the laws of nations, that 
" any individual of a nation making war against the citizens 
" of any other nation, they being at peace, forfeits his allegi- 
" ance, and becomes an outlaw and pirate. This is the case 
" of Robert C. Ambrister, clearly shown by the evidence ad- 
'« duced." 

Upon which ground, he orders Ambrister to be shot, and 
he ivas shot: Both prisoners being hurried ofi, in a few hours, 
to execution. 

Tliese are the facts; and now for ihe principle. 

This unfortunate General Order passes over the only plausi- 
ble ground, on which he could have rested the measure — and 
takes one, which principle, the practice of all civilized nations, 
and especially of our own, directly condemns: 

His ground is, that the subject or citizen of a neutral na- 
tion, who engages in war, is to be considered, by the opposite 
belligerent, as " an outlaw and pirate." In what code of na- 
tional law is this absurd principle, so absurdly characterized 
as an "established" one, to be met with? — The practice of 
all Christendom is opposed to this savage doctrine. But, 
bring the case home to ourselves. Our own revolution, which 
the mother country chose to call a rebellion, an illegal ivar on 
our part. Did she execute, on this principle, one German or 
one Frenchman, who fell into her hands by capture? — Or did 
we execute one of tlie Hessian prisoners who fell into our 
hands; with all our prejudices against those cold-l)Iooded 
liirelings, who were sent hither to fight in a quarrel in which 
their country was in no degree interested? No, no; if this 
doctrine be true, let us write upon the tomb of De Kalb, 
" Here lies an outlaw and a pirate!" Let us throw our his- 
tories in the flames, and write new ones, in which Kosciusko 
and La Fayette shall be painted in their true colours of 
"outlaws and pirates!" 

But the only plausible ground, on which we have lieard 
these executions, excused or palliated, is this : That, it is true, 
by the rules of war, " we cannot with justice take the life'* 



60 Apiiendix. 

of " an enemy submitting and delivering his arms ;" but there 
is this exception, that nations wlio observe no rules of war 
have no claims to expect it from others. Yatiel tlius lays 
down tijc rule, Book III. chap. 8, sec. 141. 

" There is, however, one case, where life may be denied an 
■' enemy, who surrenders, and also capitulation refused to a 
*' place. This is when the enemy has been guilty of some 
" enormous breach of the law of nations, and particularly if 
" it be at the same time a violation of the laws of war. This 
" denial of quarter is no natural consequence of the war, but 
'^ the punishment of his crime; a punishment, which tiie in- 
"jured party has a right to inflict; but for this penalty to be 
*'just, it must fall on the guilty. When the war is with a 
" savage nation, which observes no rules, and never gives 
" quarter, it may be chastised in the persons of any seized or 
'* taken, they are among the guilty, that by this rigour they 
" may be brought to conform to the laws of humanity. — But 
" wherever severity is not absolutely necessary, clemency is to be 
" used,'' 

The friends of the measure add, that these men, who insti- 
gated and aided the Indians, are no belter than they are; nay, 
worse ; and that " under the name of enemies, are compre- 
" bended, not only the first authors of the war, but likewise 
" all who join him, and fight for his cause." Vattel, Book 
ill. chap. 8, sec. 139. 

And now, what they ask, was the character of our enemy? 
They observe scarcely one of the rules of war. They mur- 
der men who are not in arms as well as those who are. They 
indiscriminately butcher men, women, and children. During 
?his very campaign, the tomahawk has drunk the blood of our 
peaceful countrymen. Wretches! they take no prisoners. "In 
" the council houses of Kenhagees town, the King of the jMic- 
'■'kasukians, more than fii^iy fresh scalps were found, and, in 
"■'the centre of the public square, the Old Red Sticks' Stand- 
" ard, a red pole, was erected, crowned with the scalps, re- 
" cognized by the hair as torn from the heads of the unfurtu- 
' nate companions of Scott." 



^ Jippentlix. 61 

But admit all this, as laid down by Vattel j say that he 
claims the right not only of refusing quarter to a savage ene- 
my, but of killing him, when taken prisoner, in cold blood, 
yet even this does not justify the execution of Arbuthnot and 
Ambrister. You cannot separate the rule from the co7idition. 
*' Wherever severity is not absolutely necessary , clemency is to 
" be used." "There may be (says Burlamaqui) cases ofnc- 
" cessiif^so pressing, that the care of our own preservation 
" obliges us to proceed to extremities, which in any other 
" circumstances than these would be absolutely criminal.'" 
" When our safety is incompatible with that of an enemy 
"though subdued, (says Vattel, sec. 151) it is out of all 
" question, but that in cool blood a great number of prisoners 
"should be put to death. But it is required, 1. That they 
" were not promised their lives. 2. It must be well Weighed 
" even to a certainty, that our safety evidently demands such a 
" sacrifice. If prudence will in any wise permit, either to trust 
** to their parole, or to disregard their perfidiousness, a gener- 
*' ous enemy will rather listen to the voice of humanity, than 
*' to that of a timorous circumspection." " It is only the 
''great necessity which can justify so terrible an execution, 
" (as that of Henry V. at the battle of Agincourt) and the 
" General whose case requires it, is greatly to be pitied." In 
speaking of other hard cases, such as the pillage and destruc- 
tion of towns, Vattel says, that " only enormous offences are 
"to be punished in this manner; and when rigour is not of 
" an absolute necessity, it is always beautiful to listen to the 
*' voice of humanity and clemency." 

And now, with these requisitions staring us in the face, can 
we coolly lay our hands upon our hearts, and say, this was a 
case of that absolute and pressing necessity as would justify u 
departure from all the rules of humanity, and the uniform 
practice of our own country? To answer this question, look 
at tlie state of things at that very moment. The order for 
holding the court martial bears date the 26th April. Arbuth- 
not was sentenced on the 27th — Ambrister on the 2Sth — and 
they were executed on the 20tb. On the 20lh of April (fcvc 



62 *jl]^pendix . ^ 

days before tlie ordering of the court martial) General Jack- 
son thus writes to the Secretary at War: 

*' I believe I may say that the destruction of this place, 
" (Bowlegs' town) with the possession of St. Marks, having, 
" on the night of the 18th, captured the late Lieutenant Am- 
" brister, of the British marine corps, and, as represented by 
" Arbuthnot, successor to Woodbine, will end the Indian xoar 
^^Jor the present ; and, should it be renewed, the posit iqg, taken, 
" which ought to be held, will enable a small ijarty to put it 
" down promptly.'''' 

On the 2Gth — the date of the order, he writes thus: 
" I shall leave this in two or three days for Fort Gadsden, 
" and after making all necessary arrangements for the securi- 
" ty of the positions occupied, and detaching a force to scour 
" the country west of the Appalachicola, 1 shall proceed di- 
" rect for Nashville: my presence in this country can be no 
*' longer necessary. The Indian forces have been divided and 
" scattered, cut off from all communication with those unprin- 
*' cipled agents of foreign nations, who have deluded them to 
" their ruin : they have not the power, if the will remain, of 
'^ again annoying our frontier.^' 

The war ended for the present — or if renewed, a small par- 
ty enabled to put it down promptly — the Indians scattered and 
divided — without the power of again annoying our frontier — 
we demand, whence the danger of sparing the lives of these 
two men.^ where is this pressing necessity of shedding their 
blood, and staining our annals ? 

If you say, that it was necessary to give a tremendous ex- 
ample of vengeance, to deter other agents from mingling in 
future wars, then do we deny the justice of this distant and 
contingent calculation — and we ask you, to estimate the ex- 
cuses to which this principle would lead. If we are to hold 
up these tremendous examples in terrorem for futurity, why 
not wage a war of extermination? why not sweep every man, 
and woman, and child, bearing the Seminole name, from the 
face of Florida? why "capture 6 men and 97 women and 
"children" on the 12th of April? why spare them on other 



»ippendlx\ 63 

occasions.'^ Why did not General Jackson put every one of 
them to the sword? 

As to these two Eiiglislimen, their power to injure us was 
gone. They were in our hands; cut off from all communica- 
tion with the Indians; there was no pressing necessity to take 
their lives. Why not keep them in confinement, until the war 
was formally closed ? why not punish them in some other way, 
than by deaths 

But if General Jackson had the right, and all the proceed- 
ings perfectly regular, why this indecent hasie in executing 
these miserable men ? — why not refer this case, the first we 
recollect to have ever occurred in our country; a case of such 
sensibility; to the Chief Magistrate of this nation ? There was 
another reason for it: The 65lh article of the rules and arti- 
cles of war (act of Congress April 10, 1806) declares express- 
ly, that " neither shall any sentence of a general court mar- 
" tial in time of peace, extending to the loss of life, be carried 
" into execution, until after the whole proceedings shall have 
" been transmitted to the Secretary of War to be laid before 
"the President of the United States, for his confirmation or 
" disapproval, and orders in tije case." An army always 
carries the articles of war, for its government, with it, no 
matter to what country or continent it may go. Now, as the 
war waged by General Jackson was a war de facto, and not 
such a const it uiionnl war, as was most probably contemplated 
by the act of Congress: Would it not have been proper to 
have waited for the President's instructions? 

There is another, and most important, feature in these 
transactions, which cannot be overlooked. Ambrister was 
executed in the very teeth of the true sentence of the court 
martial. The universal, and heretofore the uniform practice 
of general officers in respect to all sentences of courts mar- 
tial in cases, in which they have a right to approve or disap- 
prove, is this: If he disapproves, the sentence is sent back to 
the court for revision, together with the General's reasons for 
disapproving. If the court adhere to its last sentence, thai 
and no other can be executed. The General may, to be snre, 
11 



Q4 Aiipendix. 

pardon or remit altogether; but who will justify a person, 
who holds the prerogative of mercy, executing an act ol 
vengeance tenfold greater than what was decreed by the court 
or the jury? 

This is with a vengeance what Shakspeare calls "a devil- 
" ish mercy in the Judge." 

Should any one doubt the practice on these occasions, we 
refer to the following extract from (Gen.) Macomb's " Martial 
'♦ Law :" 

" As no sentence of a general court martial is complete un- 
" til it has received the approbation of the President of the 
" United States, or the commander in chief to whom thai 
" power lias been specially delegated, the President or such 
" commander, disapproving of the sentence, may order the 
" court to reconsider or review their proceedings, and recom- 
" mend to them an alteration of their judgment; but as it is 
" not consistent with the Executive powers, under the Con- 
" stilution of the United States, actually to exercise any judi- 
" cial authority, which belongs alone to the courts of justice: 
" so the President can neither himself make any alteration 
" in the sentence of such courts, nor commit that power to 
" any other: all, therefore, that it is competent for the Presi- 
" dent of the United States to do, if the sentence of a court 
" martial shall not meet his approbation, is to order the court 
" to review their proceedings. 

" The President of the United States has the power of par- 
" doning or remitting the sentences of courts martial. Thi^ 
" branch of the Presidential prerogative is founded upon the 
" principle, that as the President represents the body of the 
" public, and possesses by delegation all its powers and rights 
" with regard to the execution of the laws, all breaches against 
" the public law are considered as offences against the people, 
" and therefore to the President as their representative, it be- 
" longs of right to pardon ofiences against the public: and as 
" it is not competent for any court by its own authority to 
" dispense with the rigour of positive laws, however strongly 
'•'• the particular circumstances of a case may plead for such 



Ajppendix. 65 

" dispensation ; so it is of the utmost consequence for the ends 
" of justice, that an equitable power of this kind should be 
" lodged with the Chief Magistrate, from whose hands it is 
" likely to be issued with the least hazard or suspicion of 
" partial or impure motives." 

In fact, view the case of Ambrister as we will, it is impossi- 
ble for us to regard it in any other light than as an unneces- 
sary, wanton and unprecedented transaction, for which Gene- 
ral Jackson in particular ought to answer to the constituted 
authorities of this country. 



THE END. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



011 896 277 1 %. 






• Jil'i • 'tk'ii' 'V di tct^kli 15,' 



i.' ili 



ii'iXMilMOJtiA 






